Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report

Transcription

1 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report

2 Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) Centre for Economic Policy Research 77 Bastwick Street London EC1V 3PZ UK Tel: +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) Web: Centre for Economic Policy Research, November 2010 ISBN:

3 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Edited by Simon J. Evenett GLOB L TR DE LERT

4 About Global Trade Alert (GTA) Global Trade Alert provides information in real time on state measures taken during the current global economic downturn that are likely to discriminate against foreign commerce. Global Trade Alert is: Independent: GTA is co-ordinated by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, an independent academic and policy research think-tank based in London, UK. GTA draws upon expertise and analysis from 7 independent research institutions around the world. Comprehensive: GTA complements and goes beyond the WTO and World Bank s monitoring initiatives by identifying those trading partners likely to be harmed by state measures. Accessible: The GTA website allows policy-makers, exporters, the media, and analysts to search the posted government measures by implementing country, by trading partners harmed, and by sector. Third parties will be able to report suspicious state measures and governments will be given the right to reply to any of their measures listed on the website. Transparent: The GTA website allows policymakers, government officials, exporters, the media, and analysts to report discriminatory measures, but also will provide data for all stakeholders on the posted government measures by implementing country, by trading partners harmed, and by sector. Timely: The up-to-date information and informed commentary provided by Global Trade Alert will help ensure that the G20 pledge not to repeat the historic mistakes of protectionism of previous eras is met, by maintaining confidence in the world trading system, deterring beggar-thyneighbour acts, and preserving the contribution that exports could play in the future recovery of the world economy. For further information, visit About the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) The Centre for Economic Policy Research is a network of over 700 Research Fellows and Affiliates, based primarily in European universities. The Centre coordinates the research activities of its Fellows and Affiliates and communicates the results to the public and private sectors. CEPR is an entrepreneur, developing research initiatives with the producers, consumers and sponsors of research. Established in 1983, CEPR is a European economics research organization with uniquely wide-ranging scope and activities. The Centre is pluralist and non-partisan, bringing economic research to bear on the analysis of medium- and long-run policy questions. CEPR research may include views on policy, but the Executive Committee of the Centre does not give prior review to its publications, and the Centre takes no institutional policy positions. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and not those of the Centre for Economic Policy Research. CEPR is a registered charity (No ) and a company limited by guarantee and registered in England (No ). Chair of the Board Guillermo de la Dehesa President Richard Portes Chief Executive Officer Stephen Yeo Research Director Mathias Dewatripont Policy Director Richard Baldwin

5 Contents Foreword vii 1. Executive Summary 1 Section 1 2. Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June Simon J. Evenett 3. The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs: What Role of the G20? 33 Simon J. Evenett Section 2: Country-by-Country Reports Argentina 55 Australia 65 Brazil 73 Canada 83 China 91 France 102 Germany 111 India 121 Indonesia 131 Italy 141 Japan 150 Mexico 159 Republic of Korea 166 Russian Federation 175 Saudi Arabia 185 South Africa 192 Turkey 201 United Kingdom 208 United States 217

6

7 Foreword The spectre of currency wars has emerged in recent months, with continued tension between China and the United States, and new pressures on emerging markets as a result of surging capital inflows and sharply appreciating currencies. Many observers have feared that countries that thought they were the victims of currency manipulation would respond with measures to discriminate against their trading partners. The good news in the eighth GTA Report is that such protectionism has been contained so far. On closer inspection the news is less good than it seems: even though there has been no outburst of protectionism, governments around the world continue to busy themselves, introducing measure after measure to close their markets to foreign competition. Between 100 and 120 new discriminatory measures have been implemented in every quarter since 2009, and there is no evidence of any slowdown, even though world trade has begun to recover in The evidence collected by the GTA team reveals the culprits. The G20 is responsible for the lion s share of protectionism. Since their Summit in June, these governments have implemented 111 new measures that harm foreign commercial interests. The developing countries have moved in the other direction: in recent months there has been a burst of tariff cutting, largely by developing countries. That the developing countries have chosen openness is welcome, but somewhat surprising. The evidence collected by the GTA team shows clearly how the LDCs have suffered from G20 protectionism. The G20 countries are responsible for 101 out of 141 measures that have hurt the Least Developed Countries. And the developing country members of the G20 have been the worst offenders. India has harmed LDC commercial interests no less than 21 times, much more than any other G20 member. The G20 Summit is expected to launch a new trade, investment, and development initiative. Simon Evenett is surely right to argue that any such initiative should start by undoing the damage done by the discriminatory measures already introduced by the G20. We are, as always, grateful to Simon for the unbounded energy and enthusiasm he has shown in leading the GTA initiative. Thanks are also due once more to his hard-working team at the Swiss Institute for International Economics and Applied Economic Research in St. Gallen, who prepared the summary tables and maps and provided general research support namely, Johannes Fritz, Darya Gerasimenko, Malwina Nowakowska, and Martin Wermelinger. CEPR s vii

8 viii Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Publications Team Anil Shamdasani and Samantha Reid, provided invaluable support, as always. We also owe thanks to GTA s supporters: the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the International Development Research Center; the Trade Policy Unit of the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for International Development. In particular we would like to acknowledge financial support from the Global Trade and Financial Architecture project (an initiative of the UK Department for International Development and the World Bank). Indeed, the support from all our partners has been generous and most welcome, but they of course play no role in the operation of GTA, nor do they necessarily endorse the opinions expressed in this Report. The task of collecting and analysing the data has been conducted very efficiently and professionally by GTA s regional network partners, notably, the African Centre for Economic Transformation (ACET), the Gulf Research Center (GRC), the Latin American Trade Network (LATN), and the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS). Global Trade Alert makes two contributions to discussions of trade policy: by monitoring the discriminatory measures proposed and implemented by governments; and by analyzing these measures in order to understand how governments are using trade policy to respond to the crisis. Our experience to date has convinced us that both monitoring and analysis are of value to all those following developments in the world trading system. We hope to continue both activities in the coming years. Stephen Yeo Chief Executive Officer, CEPR 5 November 2010

9 1 Executive Summary Simon J. Evenett University of St. Gallen and CEPR 1. Tensions contained, for now As the chart on the cover of this Report shows, October 2010 saw a resurgence of media coverage of protectionism. Concerns that unheeded complaints about the Chinese exchange rate regime would ultimately provoke other countries to resort to competitive devaluations and more traditional forms of trade protectionism came to the fore. Protectionism had not received this much media attention since the first quarter of The high profile given to this matter in the recent weeks is no coincidence. For sure, the U.S. Congress has debated this matter in the past and American officials have sought to raise this matter with their Chinese counterparts. However, by insisting that this matter be discussed at a preparatory G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bankers, the U.S. government ensured the matter would receive substantial attention in policy, media, and other circles. The suspicion that other countries, including Korea (the G20 hosts), Japan, and Switzerland amongst others, had been motivated by commercial considerations when they intervened in the foreign currency markets raised fears that a (albeit sizeable) bilateral dispute might be taking on systemic dimensions. That, plus the unhappy precedents of rival competitive devaluations in the 1930s and the prospect of monetary policy easing in the United States in the near term, further contributed to the profile given to protectionism in its different forms in the past few weeks. Fortunately some accommodation between the Chinese and American government appears to have been struck in the run up to the G20 summit in Seoul. Part of that accommodation seems to involve shifting the focus away from the value of bilateral exchange rates to current account imbalances, which are influenced by a number of policy measures. 1 The details of this accommodation are not publicly available. Whether each party will keep their end of the bargain is another matter. The outcomes of the U.S. midterm elections adds a further potentially disruptive factor. Still tensions, which were pretty raw at certain points, appear to have been contained and one important threat to open markets put at bay. Although very public outbreaks of protectionism have been avoided, there is still the concern that less transparent or murkier forms of protectionism 1 Many of the contributors to Claessens, Evenett, and Hoekman (2010) identify different contributing factors to current levels of global imbalances. 1

10 2 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report GTA: Contributing to policy dialogue through independent monitoring of state measures. Global Trade Alert (GTA) has always operated on the assumption that in current circumstances the most practical approach to resisting protectionism is to combine peer pressure with high-quality, current information about state measures and their actual or potential effects on foreign commercial interests. Governments, the media, and civil society are the key sources of the former; the job of Global Trade Alert and other monitoring exercises is to provide the latter. An assessment as to the extent and changes over time in protectionist dynamics is also provided for in this Report, by considering not just the quarter-by-quarter changes in the numbers of protectionist measures implemented but also the number of pending measures that have been announced and are expected to implemented in the future. Information on the pending measures provides policymakers with an early warning of what is to come, a feature unique to the GTA s monitoring initiative. The Global Trade Alert was formally launched on 8 June 2009 in London, UK. The GTA s database contains reports on state measures whose implementation might affect the treatment of foreign commercial interests. State measures announced on or after 1 November 2008 are eligible for inclusion in the GTA database. GTA is implemented by a team of part-time trade policy experts from all over the world. These experts investigate state measures, seeking to document them with official sources, and identify affected products, sectors, and trading partners. Reports on state measures are submitted to the GTA s Evaluation Group and, if approved, a measure is published on the GTA s website. GTA has a group of eminent persons as advisors. They not only provide valuable advice but also stand as guardians of the independence of this initiative from any external influence. In its first year of existence over 7,500 users have returned to the website 15 times or more. The reports of GTA have been mentioned in over 200 newspapers and media outlets. Leading business persons, political leaders, and analysts have referred to GTA in their speeches. This is the eighth GTA report. Other reports are available at: www. globaltradealert.org. could have been used to target countries with aberrant exchange rate regimes or large current account surpluses. As the global overview chapter makes clear, the latest data from the GTA does not find unusually active targeting of such countries in recent months. The number of times that China and Germany s foreign commercial interests have been hit in recent months is at a lower rate than before. Overall, then, the so-called currency war (as the Brazilian Finance Minister termed it) has not translated into an outbreak of protectionism, murky or otherwise. Still, many have rightfully called for greater vigilance on the part of senior policymakers. The solution for global imbalances lies elsewhere. But such solutions require a willingness to alter domestic policies, often against the interests of certain entrenched groups. Continued stalemate in domestic reform initiatives comes at a price. The status quo is not a viable alternative, for as we have seen the pressure for adjustment will be eventually channelled into ways

11 Executive Summary 3 that threaten the open trading system. The U.S.-Chinese accommodation has merely bought time. It remains for senior policymakers to chart a medium term strategy to narrow current account imbalances. 2. Assessing G20 leadership on trade While praise is due for containing currency-related protectionist tensions, this should not overshadow the fact that the governments around the world continue to progressively close their markets to international competition. As demonstrated in the global overview chapter, the accelerated rate of implementing protectionist measures that was established in the first quarter of 2009 continues. More evidence reinforces the fact that between state measures are implemented every quarter by governments worldwide that discriminate against foreign commercial interests. As world trade recovered in early 2010, there is no evidence of a corresponding slowdown in protectionism. The G20 continues to contribute the lion s share of worldwide protectionism. Since the G20 summit in Toronto, Canada, in June 2010, in total the G20 governments have implemented 111 measures that harm foreign commercial interests. For the first time, the total number of harmful measures implemented by G20 governments during the crisis and subsequent recovery has exceeded 500 (511 to be precise.) The crossing of this dubious threshold casts further doubt on the quality of G20 Leadership on protectionism. In fact, arguably matters are worse as many non-g20 countries have engaged in a burst of tariff-cutting over the summer of 2010 and in recent months. As the global overview chapters makes clear, the GTA team found 100 tariff measures have been implemented since the Toronto summit and only a quarter of them are almost certainly protectionist. Most of the tariff cuts are by developing countries in equipment, parts, and components suggesting that arguments for opening borders can still persuade policymakers. It seems there is plenty some of the noninvitees to the Seoul Summit could teach the invited! Of course, there is variation across the G20 in their willingness to resist protectionism. Table 1.1. below reproduces our list of the top 10 most protectionist jurisdictions, evaluated on four different metrics. Once again, certain medium and large sized emerging markets and European nations dominate these negative rankings. Most but certainly not all of these worst offending nations are G20 members.

12 4 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Table 1.1. Which countries have inflicted the most harm? Certain emerging markets and European nations. Metric, Country in specified rank, Number Rank Ranked by number of (almost certainly) discriminatory measures imposed Ranked by the number of tariff lines (product categories) affected by (almost certainly) discriminatory measures Ranked by the number of sectors affected by (almost certainly) discriminatory measures Ranked by the number of trading partners affected by (almost certainly) discriminatory measures 1. EU27 (166) Viet Nam (926) Algeria (67) Argentina (174) 2. Russian Federation (85) Venezuela (785) EU27 (57) EU27 (168) 3. Argentina (52) Kazakhstan (723) Nigeria (45) China (160) 4. India (47) Nigeria (599) Venezuela (38) Indonesia (151) 5. Germany (35) Algeria (476) Viet Nam (38) Viet Nam (148) 6. Brazil (32) EU27 (467) Germany (36) India (145) 7. UK (31) Russian Federation (426) 8. Spain (25) Argentina (396) 9. Indonesia (24) 10. Italy (24) Indonesia (347) Kazakhstan (36) Russian Federation (36) India (365) Ethiopia (32) India (32) Russian Federation (143) Finland (132) Germany (132) South Africa (132) Note: There is no single metric to evaluate harm. Different policy measures affect different numbers of products, economic sectors, and trading partners. GTA reports four measures of harm. The Korean hosts of the forthcoming G20 summit apparently with the support of other governments is seeking a consensus to alter the mix of support offered to developing countries. 2 The proposal in question calls for more emphasis on trade and investment assistance to foster the business environment in developing countries and less on direct financial aid. Given the G20 s greater interest in development policy and its linkages to trade, a chapter was prepared for this Report that examined the effects on the most vulnerable developing countries of the state measures implemented by the G20 governments during the crisis and recovery phase. Table 1.2. summarises the main findings. Worldwide, 141 government measures have hurt the traders and migrant workers of the Least Developed Countries. The G20 countries are responsible for 101 of those harmful measures and it is the developing country members of the G20 that have harmed their poorer brethren the most. Further 2 South Korea presses for policy shift over aid, Financial Times, 5 November 2010.

13 Executive Summary 5 analysis (see chapter 2) revealed that India has harmed LDC commercial interests no less than 21 times, much more than any other G20 member. Any G20 initiative on trade and development ought, at a minimum, to revise the implementation of the government measures so that they do not harm the Least Developed Countries. Do No Harm would succinctly describe such an initiative. Otherwise, the Seoul G20 summit risks introducing yet more incoherence into trade and development policy reviving long-standing concerns that many what governments give with one hand (aid and other support) they take away with the other (protectionism.) Just because a currency-induced trade war has been averted does not excuse G20 governments from their sustained, lower-profile steps that disengage their economies from world markets. Together the G20 has repeated failed to deliver on their No Protectionism pledges. To this poor track record, they now propose to make reforms to trade and development policies. The harm done by the G20 members in particular, India, Argentina, and Russia to the commercial interests of the most vulnerable developing countries on Earth exemplifies the incoherence at the core of the G20 s deliberations. Do No Harm would be a far better basis upon which to launch an initiative to promote prosperity in the Least Developed Countries. Table 1.2. Do no harm? Summary statistics of those responsible for harm done to LDCs. Class of countries Total number of harmful measures implemented by this class against LDCs Worldwide (including LDCs) 141 G20 members 101 Non-OECD members 108 G20 Non-OECD members 70 LDCs 4 Note: Harmful measures are taken to be implemented measures classified as red or amber. Therefore, these totals do not include potentially harmful measures that have been announced but have not yet been implemented. Source: Global Trade Alert, data extracted 1 November Mapping crisis-era protectionism Sometimes averages and totals obscure interesting variation across countries. To counter this, and to facilitate comparisons across jurisdictions, in each report of the Global Trade Alert several world maps will be included. These maps are reproduced at the end of this Executive Summary. Map 1.1 shows how many almost certainly discriminatory measures have been implemented by each jurisdiction since November There is considerable variation across countries. Almost every major trading nation has implemented 10 or more such

14 6 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report How GTA built its extensive database on contemporary protectionism Since GTA was launched on 8 June 2009 over 1300 state initiatives have been investigated by our independent team of trade policy analysts located around the globe. These initiatives vary from packages of wide-ranging public measures, with many implications for trade and investment policy instruments, to temporary tariff increases on single product lines. GTA s goal is to provide the most comprehensive online database of state measures taken since the first crisis-related G20 summit in November 2008 that might affect foreign commercial interests. The latter are broadly conceived by the GTA team to include not just trade flows and foreign investments but also intellectual property rights and migrant workers deployed abroad. It is through careful, multi-faceted investigations of these initiatives that a rich evidential base was built, from which the contours of contemporary protectionism can be discerned. Users can access this evidence at the website: One of the most important steps in a GTA investigation is to establish whether the implementation of a state initiative has, or is likely, to alter the relative treatment of domestic and foreign commercial interests in the markets where the initiative s effects will be felt. In common parlance, GTA checks whether a state initiative tilts the playing field against foreign firms. GTA, therefore, does not opine on the WTO legality of a measure or whether a measure is appropriate, fair, reasonable or crisis-related (there being no agreed definitions of these terms.) State initiatives that almost certainly (or certainly) introduce or change asymmetries of treatment to the detriment of some foreign commercial interests are deemed by the Global Trade Alert to be contrary to the no-protectionism pledges made at the November 2008 G20 summit in Washington, DC, and reaffirmed at subsequent G20 Summits. In this Executive Summary, the phrases discriminatory and protectionist are used synonymously. Without attempts to carefully enumerate the different types of state measures used and their various effects, any assessment of contemporary protectionism is likely to overlook key trends and is of diminished value to policymakers. That is why GTA goes beyond providing an assessment of the discriminatory impact of state initiatives. Examination of the tariff lines, sectors, and trading partners that are likely to be affected by each state initiative are carefully conducted so as to provide some indication of a public initiative s impact in what is still a relatively interdependent global economy even though, strictly speaking, there may be some circumstances where some form of discrimination is needed to attain a non-protectionist government objective. No doubt purists will argue that a complete understanding of the consequences of crisis-era protectionism requires a detailed economic analysis of each state initiative. Such analyses could indeed be very useful, indeed the GTA team is and would gladly cooperate with experts interested in conducting such studies. But, leaving aside the question of resources and the availability of all the necessary data, quite frankly it is utopian to believe that over 1000 such analyses could be conducted in the timeframe necessary to influence policymaking. In short, we should not make the perfect the enemy of the very good. GTA s investigations go a long way towards indicating the scale of an initiative s effects by making extensive use of publicly available trade, investment, migration, and other data. Still, the GTA team welcomes suggestions that will result in further improvements in the coverage and assessment of state initiatives. Note: See Evenett (2009a) for an overview of the GTA s methodology and Evenett (2009b) for a discussion of the concerns some have raised about the GTA s approach.

15 Executive Summary 7 measures since the first G-20 crisis meeting. In contrast, with the exceptions of Nigeria and South Africa, every African nation has implemented less than 10 discriminatory measures. Some government initiatives affect very few trading partners, others many. Map 1.2. reports the total number of trading partners that - on the basis of existing flows of goods, investments, and people across borders - are likely to have been harmed by the implementation of a government s discriminatory measures. More than a dozen national governments have already taken measures that harm 100 or more of their trading partners. Maps 1.3. and 1.4. report the number of product categories (4 digit tariff lines) and economic sectors affected by the discriminatory measures that have been put in place since the first crisis-related G-20 summit in November While the two measures tend to be positively correlated, Mexico and Germany stand out as nations that have discriminated against relatively few tariff lines and still affected a large number of sectors. Maps were also generated for the number of times that each jurisdiction s commercial interests have been harmed by other countries discriminatory measures. The number of countries whose state measures have adversely affected a given jurisdiction s commercial interests is reported in Map 1.5. Map 1.6 shows how many times a jurisdiction s commercial interests have been harmed by the discriminatory state measures taken by other governments. This Map indicates that approximately a dozen countries have seen their commercial interests harmed 120 times or more by government measures taken since November Given the enduring interest in whether the G-20 member states have lived up to their no-protectionism pledge, Map 1.7. may be of particular interest. This map demonstrates the almost global reach of the harm done when G-20 governments violated their own no-protectionism pledges. Currently, a total of 21 countries have been adversely affected by a G-20 member s measures 100 times or more. This number has increased from 15 such countries since September 2010 when the last report was published. 4. The organisation and contents of the remainder of this Report The rest of this Report is organised as follows. The next chapter of this report provides a global overview of the resort to discrimination against foreign commercial interests since November 2008, the month when the first G20 pledge on protectionism was made. Three developments over the Summer and Autumn of 2010 are given particular attention. Given the Korean hosts apparent interest in trade and development matters, this report contains a chapter describing the frequency of the harm done to the commercial interests of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs.) The governments responsible for causing this harm are identified and the likely impact on the LDCs discussed. Similar to our other pre-g20 summit reports, this Report contains summary statistics on the harm caused to foreign commercial interests by each G20

16 8 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report member. Moreover, comparable statistics concerning the harm done by others to each G20 member s commercial interests are presented as well. The GTA reports are unique is providing such a detailed, country by country breakdowns of protectionist behaviour and harm. It is hoped that this information will promote accountability and facilitate assessments of what governments commit to do (at G20 summit meetings, for example) and what they actually do when the media spotlight is less intense. References Claessens, Evenett, and Hoekman (2010). Stijn Claessens, Simon J. Evenett, and Bernard M. Hoekman (eds.) Rebalancing the Global Economy: A Primer for Policymakers. Available at voxeu.org, php?q=node/5219 Evenett (2009a). Simon J. Evenett. What can be learned from crisis-era protectionism? An Initial Assessment. Business & Politics. October. Evenett (2009b). Simon J. Evenett. Crisis-era protectionism one year after the Washington G20 meeting: A GTA update, some new analysis, and a few words of caution. In Richard E. Baldwin (ed.). The Great Trade Collapse: Causes, Consequences and Prospects. VoxEU.org publication. December Simon J. Evenett is Professor of International Trade and Economic Development, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland; Co-Director of the International Trade and Regional Economics Programme, CEPR; and Coordinator of Global Trade Alert. 4 November 2010

17 Map 1.1 Number of discriminatory measures implemented since the first G20 crisis related summit, ignoring measures in the pipeline Executive Summary 9

18 10 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Map 1.2 Number of trading partners harmed by each jurisdiction s discriminatory measures

19 Map 1.3 Number of (4 digit) tariff lines harmed by each jurisdiction s discriminatory measures Executive Summary 11

20 12 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Map 1.4 Number of sectors harmed by each jurisdiction s discriminatory measures

21 Map 1.5 Number of trading partners affecting a jurisdiction s commercial interests Executive Summary 13

22 14 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Map 1.6 Number of times a jurisdiction s commercial interests are harmed by trading partners

23 Map 1.7 Number of harmful measures implemented by G20 countries affecting each jurisdiction Executive Summary 15

24 16 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Map 1.8 Number of pending discriminatory measures likely to harm a jurisdiction

25 SECTION 1

26

27 2 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June 2010 Simon J. Evenett University of St Gallen and CEPR Since the G20 Leaders last met in Toronto, Canada, in June 2010 perhaps the highest profile development is that criticism of certain leading traders exchange rate regimes has intensified. Fears that a currency war could break out were discussed at length. However, as this chapter shows, there have been other developments since the June 2010 summit worthy of comment. For those interesting in tracking developments numerically, the usual set of summary tables and statistics can be found after this text. In preparation for this report the Global Trade Alert (GTA) Database was updated further. The database now contains information on 1339 state measures that have been announced or implemented. Since the GTA includes state measures announced or implemented since 1 November 2008, this amounts to reporting on average 55 measures per month. The last G20 summit was in June 2010, approximately 5 months ago. Since then the GTA database has included 288 new entries. Each measure in the GTA database is classified according to the likelihood of harming or helping foreign commercial interests, be they imports, foreign investments, migrant workers, or intellectual property rights. A traffic light system (red, amber, green) is used to classify the likely impact of each measure. Of the 1339 state measures, 692 are now classified as red (that is, they are implemented state measures that almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests.) 1 Contentious exchange rate arrangements and protectionism While China s exchange rate regime had been the subject of comment earlier in this crisis, the degree of criticism--especially, but not exclusively, from U.S. 1 More information on the classification criteria used by the GTA team can be found below Table 2.1. in this chapter. 19

28 20 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report quarters--certainly intensified since June China was accused first of maintaining an artificial fixed exchange rate and then for not letting their currency appreciate faster enough. Meanwhile, other governments have been accused of intervening to slow down the pace of appreciation of their national currencies or for engineering outright currency depreciations. These developments highlight the role the exchange rate can play in distributing the burden of adjustment across economies. For the purposes of monitoring the discrimination by governments against foreign commercial interests, exchange rate levels are of interest for two reasons, one direct and one indirect. The direct reason is, of course, that governments favour domestic export interests over foreign rivals by devaluing the national currency against international benchmarks (typically the US dollar or the Euro) or by slowing the appreciation of the national currency against those benchmarks. In short, intervening in the currency market effectively discriminates against foreign commercial interests. 2 The indirect reason is that sustained currency manipulation, as it is sometimes called, can induce some trading partners to threaten--and then impose--trade sanctions. Other trading partners may act more stealthily and put in place less transparent forms of protectionism, having discounted the likelihood that diplomacy will bear fruit. While it is evident that across-the-board protectionism has not been triggered yet by disagreements over exchange rate policies, on the data available to the GTA team there is more good news. It seems doubtful that murkier forms of protectionism have been used more often than before the June 2010 summit to punish currency manipulators and those nations with large current account surpluses. In fact, the rate at which China s foreign commercial interests have been targeted has fallen slightly since the June 2010 summit. While the rate at which the U.S. commercial interests have been targeted has fallen too, it has to a smaller extent than China. Germany which, like China, has a large current account surplus saw the rate at which its commercial interests were targeted fall faster than China since the June 2010 summit. 3 No doubt other factors can account for the rate at which a nation s exporters, multinationals, and overseas nationals are harmed by protectionism, still these findings cast doubt on any simple relationship between large current account imbalances, exchange rate regime, and propensity to suffer protectionism since the June 2010 summit. This evidence is, therefore, consistent with the view that disagreements over exchange rate arrangements, while sharp, have to date been contained, which is surely good news for the world economy, allowing exports to make a greater contribution to national recoveries than would otherwise be the case. 2 Indeed some economists have noted in recent months that an exchange rate devaluation--or an artificially low exchange rate against the U.S. dollar--have equivalent economic effects to an across the board import tariff and export subsidy. 3 Table 2.4 reports on the number of times leading jurisdictions have seen their commercial interests harmed by foreign protectionism since November 2008 and since our pre-toronto report (the 6th GTA report).

29 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June A sharp uptick in tariff changes In much of reporting on measures taken by governments since November 2008, selective bail outs (state aids) and trade defence measures have figured prominently. While the former still lead in terms of number of protectionist measures imposed, totals for the latter have been catching up (see Table 2.6). However, a focus solely on protectionist measures would overlook an important development since the June 2010 summit. The GTA team has found that 101 government measures involving tariff changes have been implemented since that summit. Interestingly, only 25 of these recent measures are almost certainly protectionist. Now, the total number of tariff liberalising measures outnumbers the almost certainly protectionist ones by 131 to 100. Perusal of the GTA database reveals that many of the recent tariff measures are liberalising in nature. Tariff cutting, it seems, has come back in fashion. For sure, there are no examples of sweeping across-the-board tariff cuts. Still, almost all of these tariff cuts are by developing countries (notably Brazil and the Philippines) and are concentrated in capital goods, parts, and components. Should these developments gain momentum, they would point to manufacturing interests successfully persuading their governments to integrate further into the world economy. 4 In turn this finding would no doubt encourage those that argue that supply chains and more fine-grained specialisation in production have been a force, possibly a potent force, shaping protection during the recent global economic crisis and after. Few departures from the pattern of protectionism since Q While the last two sections point to welcome positive developments, the evidence uncovered by the GTA team since the June 2010 G20 Leaders summits provides few reasons to believe that the patterns of protectionism that we have reported previously have changed in any fundamental sense. As each quarter goes by, the temporal sequence of reported harmful measures (see Figure 2.2.) indicates the following: In the fourth quarter of 2008 approximately 50 protectionist measures were implemented. Fears of spreading protectionism in the first quarter of 2009 proved accurate. In fact, the number of protectionist measures implemented during that quarter more than doubled (to 134). Since the first quarter of 2009 the quarterly rate of protectionist measures quickly settles down--after two quarters of data collection--to a range between The current totals for the four quarters from Q on lie within this range. Moreover, the total for the second quarter of 2010 is close to this range, suggesting little break in the pace of protectionism from the beginning of 2009 to the middle of This latter finding is significant because it suggests that governments continued to resort to protectionism--often covertly--even when the recovery of world trade was under 4 Although it is worth pointing out that cutting tariffs on parts and components will, ceterius paribus, increase the effective rate of protection of final goods, providing a less rosy interpretation of recent developments.

30 22 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report way. Reports that implied that the recovery of world trade implied a lessened resort to protectionism were misplaced. Since the Toronto summit, G20 governments have implemented 94 almost certainly protectionist measures. The rest of the world has implemented only 44 such measures. Of the 100 liberalising or neutral measures implemented worldwide since June 2010, just 29 percent were implemented by G20 countries. Government leaders outside of the G20 seem better able to keep markets open than those who pledged to do so in Toronto. Once again there is a mismatch between words and deeds. (As the statistics presented in the next chapter make clear, there is a similar mismatch between the G20 countries purported desire to facilitate development through trade and the frequency with which they harm the commercial interests of the poorest developing countries, the Least Developed Countries.) The GTA provides four indicators of the extent of harm done by each country s almost certainly protectionist measures (see Table 2.5.) The pattern that established itself in early 2010 continues. 5 The largest emerging markets are joined by certain medium sized emerging markets and member states of the European Union in the listings of jurisdictions doing the most harm to their trading partners. Very few of the countries listed in the four top 10 rankings of harm done are not G20 members. One consequence of trade defence and restrictive tariff measures gaining in popularity with governments compared to bailouts is that the sectoral impact of protectionism is returning to the more traditional, pre-crisis pattern (see Table 2.7.) Transport equipment, basic metals, chemicals, and some agriculture products have witnessed substantial numbers of protectionist measures being implemented. Given the large number of measures pending potential implementation in these sectors (see the last column of Table 2.7.), it would not be terribly surprising if some of these sectors overtook the financial sector as the targets of discriminatory government policies in the next GTA report. Concluding remarks Developments since the last G20 summit in June 2010 have been mixed. It is surely good news that disagreements over exchange rate arrangements have yet to spill over into overt or murky forms of protectionism. This finding in no way diminishes the importance that should be attached to the calls for restraint in the coming months. Secondly, the reported increase in tariff cutting is promising, even if it is probably too soon to be established as a trend. That arguments to open markets can still overcome opposition in the policy circles of emerging market jurisdictions is heartening. 5 As our reports at the time showed, the pattern in 2009 was different. Then few emerging markets were represented in the top 10 lists of most harmful jurisdictions. Over time some of the industrialised countries ranked highly in 2009 were displaced by the larger and medium sized emerging market nations. Whether the latter were emulating--or reacting to--the early crisis measures taken by the former is an interesting question.

31 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June Unfortunately not all the news since June 2010 has been good. Indeed, as far as the G20 governments are concerned, there is precious little evidence that the patterns of intensified protectionism found in 2009 have yet to abate. Quarter by quarter between 100 and 120 more protectionist measures are implemented. Few appear to be unwound. As a result business as usual for the G20 is tantamount to a tightening vice on international competition and open borders. Too many quarters have gone by to dismiss the evidence as one off s or exceptional. There is an urgent need to cut the rate at which protectionist measures are implemented before the current accelerated rate becomes the new norm.

32 24 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Table 2.1 Total number of state measures reported in the GTA database Statistic Total number of measures in GTA database Total number of measures coded green Total number of measures coded amber Total number of measures coded red Total This report (November 2010) Total except unfair trade and safeguards investigations Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Total Total except unfair trade and safeguards investigations How does the GTA colour code measures? Color code Red Criteria (i) The measure has been implemented and almost certainly discriminates against foreign commercial interests. Amber (i) The measure has been implemented and may involve discrimination against foreign commercial interests; OR (ii) The measure has been announced or is under consideration and would (if implemented) almost certainly involve discrimination against foreign commercial interests Green (i) The measure has been announced and involves liberalization on a non-discriminatory (i.e., most favored nation) basis; OR (ii) The measure has been implemented and is found (upon investigation) not to be discriminatory: OR (iii) The measure has been implemented, involves no further discrimination, and improves the transparency of a jurisdiction s traderelated policies.

33 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June Table 2.2 Measures implemented since the first crisis-related G20 summit in November 2008, totals for all jurisdictions and change since last pre-summit report in June 2010 Statistic Total number of measures in GTA database Total number of measures coded green Total number of measures coded amber Total number of measures coded red Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by almost certainly discriminatory measures Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by almost certainly discriminatory measures Total number of trading partners affected by almost certainly discriminatory measures This report (November 2010) Total Total except unfair trade and safeguards investigations Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Total Total except unfair trade and safeguards investigations * * Note: * The GTA periodically reviews the number of countries affected by implemented state measures. The conservative methodology used only identifies those trading partners that are actually trading more than a de minimus amount as being affected. The re-application of this conservative methodology led the GTA team to revise down the total number of harmed jurisdictions on some measures. Overall, this reduced the total number of harmed jurisdictions from 233 in the 6th Report to 216 in the 7th Report.

34 26 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Table 2.3 Measures implemented by G20 countries since the first crisis-related G20 summit in November 2008, totals for all G20 jurisdictions and change since last pre-summit report in June 2010 Statistic Total number of measures in GTA database Total number of measures coded green Total number of measures coded amber Total number of measures coded red Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by almost certainly discriminatory measures Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by almost certainly discriminatory measures Total number of trading partners affected by almost certainly discriminatory measures This report (November 2010) Total Total except unfair trade and safeguards investigations Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Total Total except unfair trade and safeguards investigations

35 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June Figure 2.1 The G20 members implement a higher share of beggar-thy-neighbour policies than other countries Implemented Worldwide Implemented by the G Number of measures coded red Number of measures coded amber Number of measures coded green Figure 2.2 Once again, after reporting lags the total number of harmful measures for Q1 and Q convergence to the range seen in Q seems more anomalous as time goes on, suggesting a big upward jump in protectionism in 2009 Number of harmful measures Q Q Q Q Q Q Measures implemented (by quarter) 82 Q Latest report Last G20 summit (June 2010) Q Q (to ) Note: In Figures 2.1 and 2.2. a harmful measure is taken to be one which has been implemented since November 2008 and is almost certainly discriminatory (coded red) or likely to be discriminatory (coded amber).

36 28 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Table 2.4 Top 10 biggest targets of discriminatory measures Number of discriminatory measures imposed on target Number of trading partners imposing discriminatory measures Number of pending measures, which if implemented, would harm target too Target This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) China EU USA Germany France UK Italy Japan Netherlands Belgium

37 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June Table 2.5 Which countries have inflicted the most harm? Metric, Country in specified rank, Number Rank Ranked by number of (almost certainly) discriminatory measures imposed Ranked by the number of tariff lines (product categories) affected by (almost certainly) discriminatory measures Ranked by the number of sectors affected by (almost certainly) discriminatory measures Ranked by the number of trading partners affected by (almost certainly) discriminatory measures 1. EU27 (166) Viet Nam (926) Algeria (67) Argentina (174) 2. Russian Federation (85) Venezuela (785) EU27 (57) EU27 (168) 3. Argentina (52) Kazakhstan (723) Nigeria (45) China (160) 4. India (47) Nigeria (599) Venezuela (38) Indonesia (151) 5. Germany (35) Algeria (476) Viet Nam (38) Viet Nam (148) 6. Brazil (32) EU27 (467) Germany (36) India (145) 7. UK (31) Russian Federation (426) 8. Spain (25) Argentina (396) 9. Indonesia (24) 10. Italy (24) Indonesia (347) Kazakhstan (36) Russian Federation (36) India (365) Ethiopia (32) India (32) Russian Federation (143) Finland (132) Germany (132) South Africa (132) Note: There is no single metric to evaluate harm. Different policy measures affect different numbers of products, economic sectors, and trading partners. GTA reports four measures of harm.

38 30 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Figure 2.3 Top 10 implemented measures used to discriminate against foreign commercial interests since the first G20 crisis meeting. Other; 97; 13% Bail out / state aid measure; 211; 28% Local content requirement; 18; 2% Import ban ; 21; 3% Export Subsidy; 23; 3% Migration measure; 28; 4% Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified); 31; 4% Export taxes or restriction; 31; 4% Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard); 149; 20% Public procurement; 45; 6% Tariff measure; 100; 13% Figure 2.4 Top 10 pending measures that target foreign commercial interests. Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified); 8; 3% Other; 33; 11% Import ban; 9; 3% Export taxes or restriction; 9; 3% Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard); 142; 46% Other service sector measure; 14; 5% Bail out / state aid measure; 14; 5% Local content requirement; 14; 5% Public procurement; 17; 6% Investment measure; 18; 6% Tariff measure; 22;

39 Global Developments Since the G20 Summit in Toronto, June Table 2.6 Ten most used state measures to discriminate against foreign commercial interests since the first G20 crisis meeting (Ranked by number of discriminatory measures imposed) State measure Bail out / state aid measure Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) Number of discriminatory (red) measures imposed. This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Number of measures implemented (red, amber, or green). This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Number of jurisdictions that imposed these discriminatory measures. This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Number of jurisdictions harmed by these discriminatory measures. This report (November 2010) Increase from previous G20 meeting (June 2010) Tariff measure Export taxes or restriction Migration measure Investment measure Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) Export subsidy Import ban 21 na 64 na 17 na 73 na Local content requirement

40 32 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Table 2.7 Top 20 sectors most affected by discriminatory measures. CPC code, Affected Sector Number of discriminatory (red) measures affecting commercial interests in this sector Number of implemented measures affecting specified sector Number of jurisdictions implementing measures affecting specified sector and classified as red Number of pending measures affecting specified sector 81 ( Financial intermediation services and auxiliary services therefore) ( Transport equipment) ( Basic metals) ( Products of agriculture, horticulture and market gardening) ( Special purpose machinery) ( Basic chemicals) ( Meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, oils and fats) ( Fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment) ( Grain mill products, starches and starch products; other food products) ( Other chemical products; man-made fibres) ( Live animals and animal products) ( General purpose machinery) ( Dairy products) ( Yarn and thread; woven and tufted textile fabrics) ( Radio, television and communication equipment and apparatus) (Textile articles other than apparel) (Furniture; other transportable goods n.e.c.) (Electrical machinery and apparatus) ( Rubber and plastics products) ( Glass and glass products and other non-metallic products n.e.c.)

41 3 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs: What Role of the G20? Simon J. Evenett University of St. Gallen and CEPR 1. Introduction Several press reports and statements by Korean officials have suggested that this year s G20 host would like to include an initiative on trade and development in the final Leaders Statement. Mention has been made of reviving the Aid for Trade initiative, for example. Should this happen, the G20 will be following in the footsteps of the G7 which, in its final years, gave more attention to trade, aid, and development policies. It is not the premise of this chapter that further initiatives on trade and development policy are likely to be ineffective, nor does this chapter claim that there are no important hurdles to the exports of developing countries that Aid for Trade could help to address. Rather, this chapter proposes another option. G20 countries, through their trade and other policies, have been able to discriminate against the commercial interests of developing countries. An alternative starting point for a trade-and-development initiative therefore could be to encourage the unwinding of G20 measures taken against the nations with the least capacity to adjust to. In particular, the focus of this chapter is on the 50 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), a special United Nations-created designation set up to reflect the vulnerability of these national economies a variety of internal and external challenges. These countries represent some of the poorest on Earth, with the lowest per capita incomes and high rates of poverty in national populations. It is for these reasons that many countries aid policies deliberately target resources to the LDCs. While aid policies towards LDCs may be generous, commercial policies are relatively speaking more mixed. LDCs have preferential access to the markets of many industrialised countries and in recent years to some developing countries through specially-created schemes. However, these schemes have exceptions, often for the very goods that LDCs have the greatest cost advantage in producing (namely, the goods that take advantage of the LDCs labour abundance). It is with good reason, then, that much is made of the lack of coherence of many governments policies towards the LDCs. Unfortunately, this chapter includes evidence that demonstrates that such incoherence has got worse not better during the recent global economic downturn. 33

42 34 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report The remainder of this chapter is organised as follows. The next section presents summary statistics from the Global Trade Alert database on the worldwide totals concerning the incidence of harm to LDC commercial interests. The LDCs most often affected are also identified. Section three explores the role of the G20 countries as sources of harm to LDCs. Section four outlines the options open to policymakers. 2. The incidence of harm to LDC commercial interests during the crisis The Global Trade Alert database, now containing information on 1339 state measures announced since the first crisis-related G20 summit in November 2008, was deliberately designed so as to track the total incidence of harm done to the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). 1 This design feature is exploited here, so as to provide an overview of the total incidence of harm done to the LDCs during the recent global economic downturn and putative recovery. Table 3.1. Summary statistics of those responsible for harm done to LDCs Class of countries Total number of harmful measures implemented by this class against LDCs Worldwide (including LDCs) 141 G20 members 101 Non-OECD members 108 G20 Non-OECD members 70 LDCs 4 Note: Harmful measures are taken to be implemented measures classified as red or amber. Therefore, these totals do not include potentially harmful measures that have been announced but have not yet been implemented. Source: Global Trade Alert, data extracted 1 November Table 3.1 contains the total number of harmful measures implemented by different groups of economies (see Map 3.2 for country-soecific statistics). Worldwide, 141 state measures have harmed the commercial interests of the LDCs. G20 members are responsible for 70% of the worldwide total. Developing countries (Non-OECD nations) are responsible for 75% of the worldwide total, and developing country members of the G20 are responsible for just under half the worldwide total. Moreover, the implementation of four measures by certain LDCs has harmed other LDCs. 2 1 Users of globaltradealert.org will find the option to search for harm done to and by the LDCs on the Statistics page of that website. Moreover, the Advanced Search function of this website also allows for searches of the entire class of LDC countries as both affected trading partners as well as implementing jurisdictions. On both the Statistics page and the Advanced Search function it is possible also to extract information for specific LDCs, as it is for any other trading jurisdiction. 2 Angola, Ethiopia, Rwanda, and Zambia have implemented one harmful measure each.

43 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 35 Table 3.2. Crisis-era protectionism has hit some LDCs much more than others LDC Number of times this LDC's commercial interests have been harmed during the crisis Bangladesh 65 United Republic of Tanzania 46 Yemen 45 Senegal 42 Sudan 41 Ethiopia 38 Uganda 32 Afghanistan 31 Madagascar 31 Mozambique 31 Myanmar 30 Angola 29 Cambodia 29 Zambia 29 Malawi 28 Mali 27 Mauritania 26 Guinea 24 Niger 24 Togo 24 Benin 23 Djibouti 18 Gambia 17 Nepal 16 Haiti 14 Burkina Faso 13 Lao People's Democratic Republic 13 Cape Verde 12 Democratic Republic of the Congo 12 Equatorial Guinea 12 Liberia 12 Eritrea 11 Rwanda 11 Sierra Leone 11 Lesotho 10 Burundi 9 Chad 9 Maldives 9 Samoa 9 Somalia 9 Guinea-Bissau 8 Central African Republic 6 Bhutan 5

44 36 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report LDC Number of times this LDC's commercial interests have been harmed during the crisis Timor-Leste 5 Comoros 4 Solomon Islands 4 Vanuatu 4 Sao Tome and Principe 3 Kiribati 1 Tuvalu 0 Source: Global Trade Alert, data extracted 1 November While no group is singularly responsible for the protectionism felt by the LDCs, the G20 grouping and developing countries together do account for the majority of harmful cases. Both outcomes are depressing; the former another manifestation of the G20 failure to honour its protectionist moratorium, any notion of solidarity between poorer nations is hard to square with the latter. Substantial differences exist between the number of times each LDC s commercial interests have been hit by protectionism (see also Map 3.1). While the number of times a LDC s commercial interests have been hit does not reveal the total commercial value of the harm done (a calculation which would require a detailed study of all 141 harmful measures), in previous analyses by the Global Trade Alert team this measure of incidence is highly correlated with other indicators of harm. Only Tuvalu has escaped unhurt. All the other 49 LDCs have seen harm done to their commercial interests. Bangladesh, in particular, has been particularly hard hit, probably because of its sizeable labour-intensive manufacturing exports. Moreover, on more than 40 occasions government measures have been implemented that on the GTA s conservative methodologies have harmed Tanzania, Yemen, Senegal, and Sudan s commercial interests. Table 3.2 provides an indication of the extent to which the macroeconomic difficulties created for LDCs by the crisis were augmented by protectionism abroad. Indeed, one might wonder how much of the existing benefits to LDCs from regional trade initiatives, aid projects, and anti-terrorism initiatives (in the case of Yemen and Afghanistan) have been reduced or entirely offset by the protectionist responses to the crisis. This provides another indication of the scale of the incoherence in many government policies towards LDCs; giving with one hand, taking away with another. Although 141 state measures were implemented that harm LDC commercial interests, some of those measures involved the imposition of more than one policy instrument. Table 3.3 provides the breakdown of the policy instruments that have implemented and harmed the commercial interests of the most vulnerable nations, the LDCs. Unlike the worldwide totals (see the Global Overview chapter of this report), where bail-outs are the leading method of discrimination, here traditional tariff increases, export taxes and restrictions, as well as bail-outs are the most frequent sources of harm to LDC commercial interests.

45 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 37 Table 3.3 Bail-outs, tariff increases, and export taxes and restrictions have harmed LDCs the most Number of times this type of measure Policy instrument has harmed LDC commercial interests during the crisis Bail-out / state aid measure 29 Tariff measure 27 Export taxes or restriction 26 Export subsidy 16 Migration measure 12 Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 11 Local content requirement 6 Public procurement 6 Trade finance 6 Competitive devaluation 5 Other measures 20 Note: This table only reports those state measures that have harmed LDCs 5 or more times. Source: Global Trade Alert, data extracted 1 November By and large, these three instruments affect international trade flows (as opposed to migration and the other forms of commercial interests that countries have abroad). Moreover, the frequency of use of export taxes and restrictions suggest that the imports of LDCs have been affected, not just their exports (which would have been harmed by foreign tariff increases and the price falls created by bail-outs of foreign firms). Overall then, in the absence of crisis-era protectionism, LDCs would almost certainly have paid less for their imports and exported more. In short, their trade balances would have been better but for foreign protectionism. Put another way, crisis-era protectionism has probably pushed LDCs towards trade deficits, creating surpluses elsewhere that cushion the adjustment in the very (wealthier) countries better able to support themselves in other ways. 3. What was the G20 s role? It has already been stated that the G20 countries together contributed 101 of the 141 state measures that harm LDC s foreign commercial interests. But what of the variation within the G20? And how G20 countries compare with non-g20 countries in their incidence of harm to LDCs? 3 Table 3.4 lists in descending order the countries (G20 and otherwise) responsible for harming LDC commercial interests. Of the 14 jurisdictions that imposed five or more measures that harm the LDCs, 12 are G20 members (directly or indirectly through their membership of 3 One might also ask if the types of policy instrument used by G20 nations against LDC commercial interests differed from the worldwide totals. They do not. Again, of the 115 policy instruments implemented by G20 nations, bail-outs, tariff increases, and export taxes and restrictions are the three most commonly used.

46 38 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report the European Union). India stands out as the country that has implemented the most measures to harm LDCs, double the second ranked nation. The G20 hosts, Korea, have implemented six measures that harm LDCs. Next year s hosts, France, have bettered that, having implemented eight measures since November 2008 that harm the commercial interests of LDCs. These facts might be usefully borne in mind when these hosts attempt to burnish their development credentials. The fact that the top five countries in Table 3.4 are developing countries dispels any notion that beggar-thy-neighbour policies during the recent crisis were exclusively a North-South phenomenon. The larger developing countries members of the G20 have clearly taken steps to limit access to their markets for the more vulnerable LDCs. Table 3.4. Of the countries harming LDC interests five times or more, only two are not G20 members Number of times this jurisdiction has Jurisdiction (non-g20 members in italics) implemented measures harming LDC commercial interests India 21 Argentina 11 Russian Federation 10 Brazil 9 Indonesia 9 France 8 Nigeria 6 Republic of Korea 6 Slovenia* 6 Spain* 6 United Kingdom 6 China 5 Kazakhstan 5 Poland* 5 Note: * Member of the G20 by dint of the EC s membership. The total for any member state of the European Union is the sum of the measures taken by itself plus the measures taken by the European Commission on behalf of all of the member states. Almost all, if not all, of the latter measures require the ascent of the member states before being implemented; in this sense, the member states bear some responsibility for measures taken on their behalf. Source: Global Trade Alert, data extracted 1 November Options for the G20 From its first crisis-related meeting the G20 has known that it cannot claim to represent world opinion. It is one thing not to claim to speak for others, it is another to harm the weakest among the uninvited, namely, the Least Developed Countries. What follows are some suggestions to remedy matters.

47 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 39 Completing the Doha Round has been on the G20 s agenda for some time. It goes without saying that completing this negotiation would help LDCs, especially if there was a substantial Aid-for-Trade package included. However, it should be acknowledged that identifying these benefits for LDCs is not likely to induce movement from the prevailing, entrenched positions. A more direct means of helping the LDCs would be to unwind the very G20 measures identified in the Appendix to this chapter that harm LDCs. In particular the 31 measures, implemented by G20 countries that harm 10 or more LDCs, could be a priority for unwinding. Ideally, a broader unwinding initiative would be undertaken, not least because some of the non-ldc developing countries face acute economic conditions. More generally, the removal of crisis-era protectionism, which the G20 pledged to disavow in the first place, would signal that whatever the solutions are to the current malaise, shifting the burden of adjustment on to trading partners through discriminatory state measures is unacceptable. Reinforcing this principle would do much to restore the G20 s standing on trade policy.

48 40 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Map 3.1 Number of times a Least Developed Country (LDC) is affected by discriminatory measures

49 Map 3.2 Number of discriminatory measures implemented against a Least Developed Country (LDC) The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 41

50 42 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Appendix Table: Measures taken by G20 nations that harm the commercial interests of the Least Developed Countries. Title of measure in GTA database Argentina: Reference prices for GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type designated exports Red Yes Argentina Export taxes or restriction 38 China: Export tax rebates. Red Yes China Export taxes or restriction 34 South Africa: Loans to distressed companies Red Yes South Africa Bail-out / state aid measure 30 Brazil: Extension of the Brazilian Drawback System Amber Yes Brazil Export subsidy 29 India: Incentives for critical Export subsidy, Import Amber Yes India export sectors subsidy, Trade finance 28 India: Incentives to exporters through Market Linked Focus Red Yes India Export subsidy 26 Programme India: Extension of service tax refund for exporters Red Yes India Export subsidy 25 India: Pre- and post-shipment export credit Red Yes India Trade finance 25 Brazil: Public financing for the production of goods for exports by small and medium Amber Yes Brazil Trade finance 23 companies (pre-shipment phase) India: Union budget's implications for tariffs and other trade policies. India: Incentives for leather and textile sector exports Amber Yes India Export subsidy, Public procurement, Tariff measure Number of LDCs hurt Red Yes India Export subsidy 21 23

51 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 43 Title of measure in GTA database Argentina limits entry points for certain goods The Custom Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan China: Revisions to export tariffs India: Tariff concessions for imports from enumerated LDCs Belgium: Interest rate subsidies and guarantees for primary producers hit by the financial crisis Brazil: new credit line for exports of consumer goods Argentina: Subsidised export credits for capital goods and related services Indonesia: Levies export tax on crude palm oil Japan: State endorsement of private initiative to raise food self-sufficiency Brazil: Interest rate reduction on public financing for the export of capital goods Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand: Limiting rubber exports to 915,000 tons during India: Cap announced for Cotton Exports GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Amber Yes Argentina Amber Yes Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation Measure Type Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) Number of LDCs hurt 20 Tariff measure 20 Amber Yes China Export taxes or restriction 20 Amber Yes India Tariff measure 20 Red Yes Belgium Bail-out / state aid measure 19 Red Yes Brazil Trade finance 19 Red Yes Argentina Export subsidy 18 Red Yes Indonesia Export taxes or restriction 17 Red Yes Japan Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 14 Amber Yes Brazil Trade finance 13 Red Yes Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand Export taxes or restriction 13 Red Yes India Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 11

52 44 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Title of measure in GTA database Poland: State aid for companies in financial difficulties Russian Federation: Export ban on certain grains Argentina: Export registration requirements EC: Additional out-of-quota sugar exports Finland: Temporary Accelerated Depreciation for productive investments Indonesia: State Aid for footwear manufacturers GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type Number of LDCs hurt Amber Yes Poland Bail-out / state aid measure 11 Red Yes Russian Federation Export taxes or restriction 11 Red Yes Argentina Export taxes or restriction 10 Red Yes Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Communities, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Export subsidy, Export taxes or restriction 10 Red Yes Finland Bail-out / state aid measure 10 Red Yes Indonesia Bail-out / state aid measure 10

53 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 45 Title of measure in GTA database South Africa: New royalties law to take effect on 1 March GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type Amber Yes South Africa Tariff measure United States of America: United States of Local content requirement, Buy American provisions in Red Yes America Public procurement stimulus package 10 Indonesia: Import tariff increases on certain products that compete with locally Red Yes Indonesia Tariff measure 9 manufactured products Russia: Public procurement price advantage to domestic Red Yes Russian Federation Public procurement 9 producers Argentina: Media denounces de facto prohibition on bovine Red Yes Argentina Export taxes or restriction 8 meat exports Germany: Commerzbank Red Yes Germany Bail-out / state aid measure 8 Russia: Preferences to domestic producers in amendments to Red Yes Russian Federation Public procurement 8 Government Procurement Law Argentina: Subsides to dairy farmers Red Yes Argentina Bail-out / state aid measure 7 France: Immediate EUR 1.65 billion rescue package for Red Yes France Bail-out / state aid measure 7 French farmers Number of LDCs hurt

54 46 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Title of measure in GTA database EC: Measures to "stabilise" markets for certain dairy products India: Incentives for textile exporters Russia: The programme of the anti-crisis measures of the Russian Government China: Modification of tariff schedule for foreign trade (Tariff Execution Plan 2010) India: Extension of prohibition of pulses exports India: Further extension of prohibition of pulses exports GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Red Yes Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Communities, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Measure Type Bail-out / state aid measure, Export subsidy Number of LDCs hurt 6 Red Yes India Export subsidy 6 Red Yes Russian Federation Bail-out / state aid measure 6 Amber Yes China Quota (including tariff rate quotas), Tariff measure 5 Red Yes India Export taxes or restriction 5 Red Yes India Export taxes or restriction 5

55 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 47 Title of measure in GTA database Indonesia: Domestic market obligation (DMO) for mineral and coal producers Netherlands: Guarantees for working capital for undertakings in primary production of agricultural products South Africa: Tariff increases from 40% to 45% on 121 lines of garments. Spain: Guarantee scheme for credit institutions - State aid case NN54b/2008 UK: Temporary aid for the production of green products Russia and Belarus: Increase in export tariffs on crude oil and oil products Portugal: Reduction of quota non-eu hires Republic of Korea: Increased tariffs for selected products Republic of Korea: Restoration of tariff on imports of crude oil to 3% India: Increased support to domestic cereal producers India: Registration requirement for exports of cotton yarn GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type Number of LDCs hurt Red Yes Indonesia Export taxes or restriction 5 Red Yes Netherlands Bail-out / state aid measure 5 Amber Yes South Africa Tariff measure 5 Red Yes Spain Bail-out / state aid measure 5 Red Yes United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Bail-out / state aid measure 5 Red Yes Belarus, Russian Federation Export taxes or restriction 4 Red Yes Portugal Migration measure 4 Red Yes Republic of Korea Tariff measure 4 Red Yes Republic of Korea Tariff measure 4 Red Yes India Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 3 Red Yes India Export taxes or restriction 3

56 48 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Title of measure in GTA database Republic of Korea: State leaseback of ships Russia: Trade Ministry approves Light Industry Strategy until 2020 United States of America: Dairy Export Incentive Program Argentina: Reference prices for imports of certain products Argentina: Extension of tax exemptions for locally produced capital goods France: Financial support to customers of Airbus. France: New subsidies for the fruits and vegetables sector. France: Government pressurises Total to preserve jobs in Dunkirk India: Licensing requirement for electrical energy imports India: Export duties on raw cotton and cotton waste India: Raises export duty on iron-ore India: Ban on raw cotton exports lifted, licensing introduced India: Visa Norms relaxed for IT Industry GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type Number of LDCs hurt Red Yes Republic of Korea Bail-out / state aid measure 3 Amber Yes Russian Federation Bail-out / state aid measure 3 Red Yes United States of America Red Yes Argentina Export subsidy 3 Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 2 Red Yes Argentina Bail-out / state aid measure 2 Red Yes France Consumption subsidy, Export subsidy 2 Red Yes France Bail-out / state aid measure 2 Amber Yes France Investment measure 2 Red Yes India Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 2 Red Yes India Export taxes or restriction 2 Red Yes India Export taxes or restriction 2 Amber Yes India Export taxes or restriction 2 Amber Yes India Migration measure 2

57 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 49 Title of measure in GTA database Indonesia: state support for aircraft manufacturer Indonesia: Import duty exemptions of imported goods and materials for the production of goods/services Republic of Korea: Export financing scheme to encourage imports by Mexican firms Russia: Injection of 2 billion rubles (45 million euros) into the charter capital of ½NPO Energomash named after academician V.P.Glushko Saudi Arabia: Changes to sponsorship system Argentina: Grants US$ 70M credit to General Motors Argentina: Adoption of Mercosur decision on exemptions to the Common External Tariff Mercosur: temporary increase in tariffs on textiles GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Red Yes Indonesia Measure Type Bail-out / state aid measure, State-controlled company Number of LDCs hurt 2 Amber Yes Indonesia Import subsidy, Tariff measure 2 Red Yes Republic of Korea Trade finance 2 Red Yes Russian Federation Bail out / state aid measure 2 Red Yes Saudi Arabia Migration measure 2 Red Yes Argentina Bail-out / state aid measure 1 Amber Yes Argentina Tariff measure 1 Red Yes Argentina, Brazil Tariff measure 1

58 50 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Title of measure in GTA database EC: Reintroduction of export refunds for milk and milk products, butter and butter oil Brazil: Automatic import licensing for selected products Brazil: Temporary tariff increase on some textiles and textile articles products Brazil: Tariff increase on prepared or preserved sardines and on jute Brazil: Extension of antidumping duties for jute bag from Bangladesh and India China: Implementation of State Council Opinions on imported goods GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Red Yes Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, European Communities, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Amber Yes Brazil Measure Type Number of LDCs hurt Export subsidy 1 Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 1 Red Yes Brazil Tariff measure 1 Red Yes Brazil Tariff measure 1 Amber Yes Brazil Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) 1 Red Yes China Local content requirement 1

59 The Harm Done to the Commercial Interests of the LDCs 51 Title of measure in GTA database China: Temporary increase of import tariffs on fuel France: State loan for Renault in return of a pledge to increase local content and to maintain employment India: Import duties on iron and steel products India: Restrictions on work visas India: Export duties on iron ore products Indonesia: Stricter regulation on fruit and vegetable imports Indonesia: Increased import tariffs on medicines, cosmetics, and energy efficient lights Japan: Volume-based safeguard on butter and other fats and oils Poland: Rescue aid to Tarchominskie Zak éady Farmaceutyczne "POLFA" S.A. Republic of Korea: Reduction of work permits for foreign workers Republic of Korea: Reduced withholding allowances for foreign workers GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type Number of LDCs hurt Red Yes China Tariff measure 1 Amber Yes France Local content requirement 1 Red Yes India Tariff measure 1 Red Yes India Migration measure 1 Red Yes India Export taxes or restriction 1 Red Yes Indonesia Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified), Sanitary and Phytosantiary Measure 1 Red Yes Indonesia Tariff measure, Technical Barrier to Trade 1 Red Yes Japan Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) 1 Red Yes Poland Bail-out / state aid measure 1 Red Yes Republic of Korea Migration measure 1 Red Yes Republic of Korea Intellectual property protection, Migration measure 1

60 52 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA Report Title of measure in GTA database Russia: Temporary import duty increase on iron rolled products and iron Russia: Food security doctrine is focused on import substitution Saudi Arabia: Import measures against Yemeni agricultural products South Africa: Automotive investment scheme guidelines Spain: State fund for local investment Spain: State fund for a dynamic economy and employment UK: Tougher rules for non-eu students UK: Temporary caps on migrant worker permits GTA Evaluation Implemented Date of inception Implementing Jurisdiction(s) Measure Type Number of LDCs hurt Red Yes Russian Federation Tariff measure 1 Red Yes Russian Federation Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 1 Red Yes Saudi Arabia Import ban 1 Red Yes South Africa Bail-out / state aid measure 1 Red Yes Spain Public procurement 1 Red Yes Spain Public procurement 1 Red Yes Red Yes United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Migration measure 1 Migration measure 1

61 SECTION 2 Country-by-Country Reports

62

63 Country-by-Country Reports 55 Argentina Table 4.1. Foreign state measures affecting Argentina s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Argentina s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting Argentina s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of Argentina s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm Argentina s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Argentina s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Argentina s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting Argentina s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect Argentina s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm Argentina s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm Argentina s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Argentina in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. ARGENTINA

64 56 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table 4.2. Argentina s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Argentina s commercial interests Total number of Argentina s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of Argentina s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of Argentina s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of Argentina s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by Argentina that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by Argentina that harm foreign commercial interests. Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by Argentina that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions ARGENTINA Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Argentina in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database.

65 Country-by-Country Reports 57 Table 4.3. Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting Argentina s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 19 France 8 India 7 Indonesia 7 Spain 6 Brazil 5 Netherlands 5 Belgium 4 Finland 4 Germany 4 Italy 4 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4 Austria 3 Belarus 3 Bulgaria 3 Cyprus 3 Czech Republic 3 Denmark 3 Estonia 3 European Communities 3 Greece 3 Hungary 3 Ireland 3 Kazakhstan 3 Latvia 3 Lithuania 3 Luxembourg 3 Malta 3 Poland 3 Portugal 3 Romania 3 Slovakia 3 Slovenia 3 Sweden 3 Ukraine 3 Bolivia 2 China 2 Mexico 2 Morocco 2 Nigeria 2 Pakistan 2 Paraguay 2 Republic of Korea 2 South Africa 2 Switzerland 2 ARGENTINA

66 58 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures United States of America 2 Venezuela 2 Viet Nam 2 Algeria 1 Australia 1 Chile 1 Ecuador 1 Ghana 1 Japan 1 Malaysia 1 Thailand 1 Table 4.4. Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by Argentina s state measures ARGENTINA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 40 Brazil 23 Germany 20 France 19 Italy 19 Spain 19 India 18 Japan 18 United States of America 18 Belgium 16 Netherlands 16 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 16 Chile 15 Indonesia 15 Sweden 15 Thailand 15 Uruguay 15 Israel 14 Singapore 14 South Africa 14 Canada 13 Malaysia 13 Peru 13 Republic of Korea 13 Paraguay 12 Russian Federation 12 Viet Nam 12 Colombia 11 Czech Republic 11 Finland 11 Hong Kong 11

67 Country-by-Country Reports 59 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Mexico 11 Portugal 11 Switzerland 11 Turkey 11 Austria 10 Ecuador 10 Egypt 10 Norway 10 Poland 10 Venezuela 10 Greece 9 Philippines 9 Romania 9 Ukraine 9 Australia 8 Bolivia 8 Denmark 8 Dominican Republic 8 Saudi Arabia 8 Trinidad and Tobago 8 United Arab Emirates 8 Algeria 7 Bangladesh 7 Croatia 7 Cuba 7 Ghana 7 Ireland 7 Pakistan 7 Tunisia 7 Bulgaria 6 Hungary 6 Jordan 6 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 6 Luxembourg 6 Morocco 6 Nigeria 6 Sri Lanka 6 Angola 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 Cameroon 5 Chinese Taipei 5 Congo 5 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 5 Jamaica 5 Kazakhstan 5 Lebanon 5 Lithuania 5 ARGENTINA

68 60 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report ARGENTINA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Netherlands Antilles 5 New Zealand 5 Panama 5 Serbia 5 Slovenia 5 Sudan 5 Albania 4 Costa Rica 4 El Salvador 4 Honduras 4 Iran 4 Kuwait 4 Macedonia 4 Mali 4 Malta 4 Niger 4 Palestinian 4 Senegal 4 Slovakia 4 Afghanistan 3 Aruba 3 Burkina Faso 3 Cape Verde 3 Cyprus 3 Côte d'ivoire 3 Equatorial Guinea 3 Estonia 3 Gambia 3 Guatemala 3 Haiti 3 Iceland 3 Mauritania 3 Mauritius 3 Montenegro 3 Nicaragua 3 Yemen 3 Azerbaijan 2 Barbados 2 Benin 2 Cambodia 2 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2 Ethiopia 2 Guyana 2 Kenya 2 Liberia 2 Mozambique 2 Myanmar 2

69 Country-by-Country Reports 61 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Qatar 2 Saint Lucia 2 Syrian Arab Republic 2 Uganda 2 United Republic of Tanzania 2 Zimbabwe 2 Andorra 1 Armenia 1 Bahamas 1 Bahrain 1 Belarus 1 Belize 1 Botswana 1 Brunei Darussalam 1 Burundi 1 Central African Republic 1 Chad 1 Comoros 1 Djibouti 1 Dominica 1 Eritrea 1 Gabon 1 Georgia 1 Grenada 1 Guinea 1 Guinea-Bissau 1 Iraq 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 Lao People's Democratic Republic 1 Latvia 1 Lesotho 1 Madagascar 1 Malawi 1 Namibia 1 Oman 1 Papua New Guinea 1 Republic of Moldova 1 Rwanda 1 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 Sao Tome and Principe 1 Seychelles 1 Sierra Leone 1 Somalia 1 Suriname 1 Swaziland 1 Tajikistan 1 ARGENTINA

70 62 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Togo 1 Zambia 1 Table 4.5 Implemented measures that harm Argentina s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Tariff measure % Bail out / state aid measure % Export subsidy % Export taxes or restriction % Public procurement 9 5.9% Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 8 5.3% Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) 8 5.3% Trade finance 7 4.6% Local content requirement 6 3.9% Competitive devaluation 4 2.6% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 4 2.6% Import ban 3 2.0% Consumption subsidy 2 1.3% Investment measure 2 1.3% Migration measure 2 1.3% Other service sector measure 2 1.3% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 2 1.3% State-controlled company 2 1.3% Technical Barrier to Trade 2 1.3% Import subsidy 1 0.7% Intellectual property protection 1 0.7% Total % Table 4.6 Argentina s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type ARGENTINA Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Bail out / state aid measure % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Export taxes or restriction 6 9.7% Tariff measure 4 6.5% Export subsidy 1 1.6% Import ban 1 1.6% Local content requirement 1 1.6% Technical Barrier to Trade 1 1.6% Total %

71 Country-by-Country Reports 63 Map 4.1 Argentina: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures ARGENTINA

72 64 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report ARGENTINA Map 4.2 Argentina: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others

73 Country-by-Country Reports 65 Australia Table 4.7. Foreign state measures affecting Australia s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Australia s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting Australia s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of Australia s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm Australia s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Australia s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Australia s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting Australia s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect Australia s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm Australia s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm Australia s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Australia in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. AUSTRALIA

74 66 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table 4.8. Australia s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Australia s commercial interests Total number of Australia s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of Australia s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of Australia s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of Australia s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by Australia that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by Australia that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by Australia that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions AUSTRALIA Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Australia in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database.

75 Country-by-Country Reports 67 Table 4.9 Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting Australia s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 17 Indonesia 14 India 11 Argentina 8 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 8 France 7 Japan 7 Germany 6 China 5 Netherlands 5 Poland 5 Republic of Korea 5 Spain 5 Belgium 4 Finland 4 Ireland 4 Italy 4 Kazakhstan 4 Slovakia 4 United States of America 4 Viet Nam 4 Austria 3 Belarus 3 Brazil 3 Bulgaria 3 Cyprus 3 Czech Republic 3 Denmark 3 Estonia 3 European Communities 3 Greece 3 Hungary 3 Latvia 3 Lithuania 3 Luxembourg 3 Malta 3 Nigeria 3 Portugal 3 Romania 3 Slovenia 3 Sweden 3 Algeria 2 Malaysia 2 Singapore 2 South Africa 2 AUSTRALIA

76 68 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Switzerland 2 Ethiopia 1 Mexico 1 Pakistan 1 Sri Lanka 1 Thailand 1 Ukraine 1 Venezuela 1 Table 4.10 Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by Australia s state measures AUSTRALIA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 5 Germany 5 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 5 United States of America 5 India 4 Denmark 3 Indonesia 3 Ireland 3 Italy 3 Malaysia 3 Netherlands 3 New Zealand 3 Poland 3 Austria 2 Belgium 2 Brazil 2 Canada 2 Czech Republic 2 Finland 2 France 2 Greece 2 Hong Kong 2 Hungary 2 Portugal 2 Singapore 2 Slovakia 2 South Africa 2 Spain 2 Sweden 2 Thailand 2 Viet Nam 2 Argentina 1 Belarus 1

77 Country-by-Country Reports 69 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Bulgaria 1 Chile 1 Cuba 1 Cyprus 1 Estonia 1 Fiji 1 Japan 1 Latvia 1 Lithuania 1 Luxembourg 1 Malta 1 Mexico 1 Norway 1 Philippines 1 Republic of Korea 1 Romania 1 Slovenia 1 Sri Lanka 1 Switzerland 1 Turkey 1 United Arab Emirates 1 Zimbabwe 1 Table Implemented measures that harm Australia s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Bail out / state aid measure % Tariff measure % Export subsidy % Export taxes or restriction % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Migration measure 9 4.9% Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) 9 4.9% Local content requirement 8 4.3% Public procurement 7 3.8% Trade finance 7 3.8% Competitive devaluation 5 2.7% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 5 2.7% Import ban 4 2.2% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 3 1.6% Consumption subsidy 2 1.1% Import subsidy 2 1.1% Investment measure 2 1.1% State-controlled company 2 1.1% Technical Barrier to Trade 2 1.1% Intellectual property protection 1 0.5% AUSTRALIA

78 70 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Other service sector measure 1 0.5% State trading enterprise 1 0.5% Sub-national government measure 1 0.5% Total % Table Australia s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Bail out / state aid measure % Public procurement % Investment measure % Migration measure % Local content requirement 1 5.9% Tariff measure 1 5.9% Total % AUSTRALIA

79 Country-by-Country Reports 71 Map 4.3 Australia: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures AUSTRALIA

80 72 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report AUSTRALIA Map 4.4 Australia: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others

81 Country-by-Country Reports 73 Brazil Table Foreign state measures affecting Brazil s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Brazil s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting Brazil s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of Brazil s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm Brazil s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Brazil s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Brazil s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting Brazil s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect Brazil s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm Brazil s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm Brazil s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Brazil in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. BRAZIL

82 74 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Brazil s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Brazil s commercial interests Total number of Brazil s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of Brazil s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of Brazil s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of Brazil s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by Brazil that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by Brazil that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by Brazil that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Brazil in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. BRAZIL

83 Country-by-Country Reports 75 Table Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting Brazil s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 24 Argentina 23 Indonesia 11 India 10 France 7 Germany 6 Portugal 6 Spain 6 Italy 5 Kazakhstan 5 Netherlands 5 Nigeria 5 Poland 5 Republic of Korea 5 Ukraine 5 Belarus 4 Belgium 4 Finland 4 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4 United States of America 4 Austria 3 Bulgaria 3 China 3 Cyprus 3 Czech Republic 3 Denmark 3 Estonia 3 European Communities 3 Greece 3 Hungary 3 Ireland 3 Japan 3 Latvia 3 Lithuania 3 Luxembourg 3 Malta 3 Paraguay 3 Romania 3 Slovakia 3 Slovenia 3 Sweden 3 Australia 2 Bolivia 2 Canada 2 Morocco 2 BRAZIL

84 76 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures South Africa 2 Switzerland 2 Venezuela 2 Viet Nam 2 Armenia 1 Ecuador 1 Egypt 1 Ethiopia 1 Iran 1 Malaysia 1 Mexico 1 Pakistan 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Thailand 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 Table Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by Brazil s state measures BRAZIL Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 20 United States of America 14 Germany 13 France 10 Japan 8 Spain 8 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 8 Belgium 7 Canada 7 Hong Kong 7 India 7 Italy 7 Netherlands 7 Indonesia 6 Malaysia 6 Mexico 6 Sweden 6 Turkey 6 Argentina 5 Austria 5 Chile 5 Finland 5 Republic of Korea 5 South Africa 5 Viet Nam 5 Bangladesh 4 Denmark 4

85 Country-by-Country Reports 77 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Paraguay 4 Peru 4 Portugal 4 Russian Federation 4 Singapore 4 Switzerland 4 Australia 3 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 3 Egypt 3 Israel 3 Pakistan 3 Philippines 3 Thailand 3 Ukraine 3 Bolivia 2 Côte d'ivoire 2 Ireland 2 Luxembourg 2 Morocco 2 New Zealand 2 Norway 2 Poland 2 Romania 2 Slovenia 2 Sri Lanka 2 Uruguay 2 Algeria 1 Angola 1 Antigua and Barbuda 1 Armenia 1 Aruba 1 Bahamas 1 Bahrain 1 Barbados 1 Belarus 1 Benin 1 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 Cambodia 1 Cameroon 1 Cape Verde 1 Cayman Islands 1 Chad 1 Chinese Taipei 1 Colombia 1 Costa Rica 1 Croatia 1 Cuba 1 BRAZIL

86 78 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report BRAZIL Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Cyprus 1 Czech Republic 1 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 Djibouti 1 Dominican Republic 1 Ecuador 1 El Salvador 1 Equatorial Guinea 1 Estonia 1 Gabon 1 Gambia 1 Georgia 1 Ghana 1 Greece 1 Guatemala 1 Guinea 1 Guyana 1 Haiti 1 Honduras 1 Hungary 1 Iceland 1 Iran 1 Iraq 1 Jamaica 1 Jordan 1 Kenya 1 Kuwait 1 Latvia 1 Lebanon 1 Liberia 1 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1 Madagascar 1 Malta 1 Mauritania 1 Mauritius 1 Mozambique 1 Netherlands Antilles 1 Nicaragua 1 Nigeria 1 Oman 1 Panama 1 Qatar 1 Saint Lucia 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Senegal 1 Slovakia 1 Sudan 1

87 Country-by-Country Reports 79 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Suriname 1 Syrian Arab Republic 1 Tajikistan 1 Togo 1 Tunisia 1 Turks and Caicos Islands 1 United Arab Emirates 1 United Republic of Tanzania 1 Venezuela 1 Table Implemented measures that harm Brazil s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Bail out / state aid measure % Tariff measure % Export subsidy % Export taxes or restriction % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Public procurement % Local content requirement 9 4.1% Import ban 7 3.2% Trade finance 7 3.2% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 6 2.7% Competitive devaluation 5 2.3% Consumption subsidy 5 2.3% Technical Barrier to Trade 5 2.3% Investment measure 4 1.8% Migration measure 4 1.8% Import subsidy 2 0.9% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 2 0.9% State-controlled company 2 0.9% Intellectual property protection 1 0.5% Other service sector measure 1 0.5% Sub-national government measure 1 0.5% Total % BRAZIL

88 80 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Brazil s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Tariff measure % Trade finance 4 7.3% Export subsidy 3 5.5% Public procurement 2 3.6% Bail out / state aid measure 1 1.8% Export taxes or restriction 1 1.8% Investment measure 1 1.8% Local content requirement 1 1.8% Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 1 1.8% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 1 1.8% Total % BRAZIL

89 Country-by-Country Reports 81 Map 4.5 Brazil: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures BRAZIL

90 82 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report BRAZIL Map 4.6 Brazil: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others.

91 Country-by-Country Reports 83 Canada Table Foreign state measures affecting Canada s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Canada s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting Canada s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of Canada s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm Canada s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Canada s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Canada s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting Canada s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect Canada s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm Canada s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm Canada s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Canada in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. CANADA

92 84 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Canada s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Canada s commercial interests Total number of Canada s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of Canada s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of Canada s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of Canada s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by Canada that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by Canada that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by Canada that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Canada in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. CANADA

93 Country-by-Country Reports 85 Table Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting Canada s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 41 Argentina 13 India 11 Indonesia 9 France 8 Brazil 7 Spain 7 Republic of Korea 6 United States of America 6 China 5 Germany 5 Italy 5 Kazakhstan 5 Poland 5 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 5 Belgium 4 Finland 4 Ireland 4 Japan 4 Netherlands 4 Sweden 4 Ukraine 4 Austria 3 Belarus 3 Bulgaria 3 Cyprus 3 Czech Republic 3 Denmark 3 Estonia 3 European Communities 3 Greece 3 Hungary 3 Latvia 3 Lithuania 3 Luxembourg 3 Malta 3 Portugal 3 Romania 3 Slovakia 3 Slovenia 3 Australia 2 Malaysia 2 Morocco 2 Singapore 2 South Africa 2 CANADA

94 86 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Switzerland 2 Viet Nam 2 Algeria 1 Bolivia 1 Ecuador 1 Ethiopia 1 Ghana 1 Iran 1 Mexico 1 Nigeria 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Sri Lanka 1 Thailand 1 Togo 1 Venezuela 1 Table Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by Canada s state measures CANADA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 7 United States of America 6 France 5 Mexico 5 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 5 India 4 Republic of Korea 4 Colombia 3 Iran 3 Morocco 3 Pakistan 3 Philippines 3 Romania 3 Sri Lanka 3 United Arab Emirates 3 Brazil 2 Czech Republic 2 Germany 2 Japan 2 Netherlands 2 Spain 2 Austria 1 Croatia 1 Denmark 1 Finland 1 Hungary 1 Indonesia 1

95 Country-by-Country Reports 87 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Italy 1 Peru 1 Poland 1 Singapore 1 Sweden 1 Switzerland 1 Thailand 1 Ukraine 1 Table Implemented measures that harm Canada s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Bail out / state aid measure % Tariff measure % Export subsidy % Export taxes or restriction % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Public procurement % Migration measure % Trade finance 8 3.4% Local content requirement 7 2.9% Consumption subsidy 6 2.5% Competitive devaluation 5 2.1% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 5 2.1% State-controlled company 5 2.1% Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) 5 2.1% Import ban 4 1.7% State trading enterprise 4 1.7% Intellectual property protection 3 1.3% Investment measure 3 1.3% Other service sector measure 3 1.3% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 3 1.3% Import subsidy 2 0.8% Technical Barrier to Trade 2 0.8% Sub-national government measure 1 0.4% Total % CANADA

96 88 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Canada s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Migration measure % Investment measure % Local content requirement 1 6.7% Trade finance 1 6.7% Total % CANADA

97 Country-by-Country Reports 89 Map 4.7 Canada: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures CANADA

98 90 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report CANADA Map 4.8 Canada: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others

99 Country-by-Country Reports 91 China Table Foreign state measures affecting China s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting China s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting China s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of China s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm China s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against China s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against China s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting China s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect China s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm China s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm China s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting China in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. CHINA

100 92 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table China s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting China s commercial interests Total number of China s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of China s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of China s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of China s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by China that harm foreign commercial interests. Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by China that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by China that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting China in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. CHINA

101 Country-by-Country Reports 93 Table Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting China s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 51 Argentina 40 India 35 Brazil 20 Germany 18 France 17 Indonesia 17 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 17 Spain 16 Italy 15 Netherlands 15 Poland 15 Sweden 14 Austria 13 Belgium 13 European Communities 13 Finland 13 Greece 13 Ireland 13 Latvia 13 Portugal 13 Romania 13 Slovakia 13 Bulgaria 12 Cyprus 12 Czech Republic 12 Denmark 12 Estonia 12 Hungary 12 Lithuania 12 Luxembourg 12 Malta 12 Slovenia 12 United States of America 9 Republic of Korea 8 Viet Nam 8 Canada 7 Belarus 6 South Africa 6 Ukraine 6 Australia 5 Japan 5 Kazakhstan 5 Mexico 5 Nigeria 5 CHINA

102 94 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Pakistan 5 Turkey 4 Algeria 3 Iran 3 Paraguay 3 Saudi Arabia 3 Bolivia 2 Egypt 2 Singapore 2 Switzerland 2 Thailand 2 Venezuela 2 Bangladesh 1 Botswana 1 Chinese Taipei 1 Colombia 1 Dominican Republic 1 Ethiopia 1 Ghana 1 Iraq 1 Israel 1 Jordan 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 Malaysia 1 Mongolia 1 New Zealand 1 Philippines 1 Sierra Leone 1 Sri Lanka 1 Togo 1 Uganda 1 United Arab Emirates 1 United Republic of Tanzania 1 Uzbekistan 1 Table Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by China s state measures CHINA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures United States of America 13 Republic of Korea 10 Germany 9 Italy 9 Japan 9 Netherlands 9 Belgium 8

103 Country-by-Country Reports 95 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures France 8 Russian Federation 8 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 8 Indonesia 7 Spain 7 Thailand 7 Austria 6 Czech Republic 6 Malaysia 6 Sweden 6 Australia 5 Canada 5 Denmark 5 Finland 5 Greece 5 Hungary 5 India 5 Ireland 5 Philippines 5 Poland 5 Romania 5 Singapore 5 Slovakia 5 Switzerland 5 Viet Nam 5 Bulgaria 4 Costa Rica 4 Estonia 4 Israel 4 Lithuania 4 Luxembourg 4 Mexico 4 New Zealand 4 Norway 4 Portugal 4 Slovenia 4 Ukraine 4 Brazil 3 Chinese Taipei 3 Croatia 3 Latvia 3 Malta 3 Saudi Arabia 3 South Africa 3 Turkey 3 Argentina 2 Belarus 2 CHINA

104 96 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report CHINA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 Chile 2 Cuba 2 Cyprus 2 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 2 Dominican Republic 2 Egypt 2 El Salvador 2 European Communities 2 Gabon 2 Iceland 2 Iran 2 Iraq 2 Kazakhstan 2 Kuwait 2 Kyrgyzstan 2 Morocco 2 Myanmar 2 Tunisia 2 United Arab Emirates 2 Uzbekistan 2 Venezuela 2 Yemen 2 Afghanistan 1 Albania 1 Azerbaijan 1 Bahamas 1 Bangladesh 1 Barbados 1 Belize 1 Benin 1 Bermuda 1 Bolivia 1 Botswana 1 Burkina Faso 1 Cambodia 1 Cameroon 1 Cape Verde 1 Chad 1 Colombia 1 Congo 1 Côte d'ivoire 1 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1 Ecuador 1 Equatorial Guinea 1 Eritrea 1 Ethiopia 1

105 Country-by-Country Reports 97 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Fiji 1 Gambia 1 Georgia 1 Ghana 1 Guatemala 1 Guinea 1 Guyana 1 Haiti 1 Honduras 1 Hong Kong 1 Jamaica 1 Jordan 1 Kenya 1 Lao People's Democratic Republic 1 Lebanon 1 Lesotho 1 Liberia 1 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1 Madagascar 1 Malawi 1 Mali 1 Mauritania 1 Mauritius 1 Mongolia 1 Montenegro 1 Mozambique 1 Namibia 1 Nepal 1 Netherlands Antilles 1 New Caledonia 1 Nicaragua 1 Niger 1 Nigeria 1 Oman 1 Pakistan 1 Panama 1 Papua New Guinea 1 Paraguay 1 Peru 1 Qatar 1 Republic of Moldova 1 Rwanda 1 Senegal 1 Serbia 1 Sierra Leone 1 Somalia 1 Sri Lanka 1 CHINA

106 98 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Suriname 1 Swaziland 1 Syrian Arab Republic 1 Tajikistan 1 Togo 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 Uganda 1 United Republic of Tanzania 1 Uruguay 1 Vanuatu 1 Zambia 1 Zimbabwe 1 Table Implemented measures that harm China s commercial interests, by type CHINA Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Tariff measure % Bail out / state aid measure % Export taxes or restriction % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Migration measure % Export subsidy % Import ban % Public procurement % Local content requirement % Trade finance 8 1.8% Consumption subsidy 7 1.5% Investment measure 7 1.5% Competitive devaluation 5 1.1% Other service sector measure 5 1.1% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 5 1.1% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 4 0.9% State trading enterprise 4 0.9% Technical Barrier to Trade 3 0.7% Import subsidy 2 0.4% State-controlled company 2 0.4% Intellectual property protection 1 0.2% Sub-national government measure 1 0.2% Total %

107 Country-by-Country Reports 99 Table China s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Public procurement % Tariff measure 3 9.1% Export taxes or restriction 2 6.1% Investment measure 2 6.1% Local content requirement 2 6.1% Import ban 1 3.0% Intellectual property protection 1 3.0% Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 1 3.0% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 1 3.0% Total % CHINA

108 100 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report CHINA Map 4.9 China: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures

109 Country-by-Country Reports 101 Map 4.10 China: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others CHINA

110 102 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report France Table Foreign state measures affecting France s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting France s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting France s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of France s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm France s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against France s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against France s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting France s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect France s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm France s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm France s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions FRANCE Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting France in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database.

111 Country-by-Country Reports 103 Table 4.2. France s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting France s commercial interests Total number of France s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of France s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of France s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of France s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by France that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by France that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by France that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting France in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. FRANCE

112 104 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting France s commercial interests FRANCE Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 56 Argentina 19 Indonesia 12 Brazil 10 India 10 Belarus 8 China 8 Nigeria 7 Germany 6 Kazakhstan 6 Canada 5 Italy 5 Republic of Korea 5 United States of America 5 Algeria 4 Japan 4 Spain 4 Ukraine 4 Poland 3 Saudi Arabia 3 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 3 Viet Nam 3 Australia 2 Finland 2 Iran 2 Netherlands 2 Pakistan 2 Singapore 2 South Africa 2 Sweden 2 Switzerland 2 Venezuela 2 Austria 1 Belgium 1 Bolivia 1 Cameroon 1 Ecuador 1 Ethiopia 1 Gambia 1 Ghana 1 Greece 1 Israel 1 Latvia 1 Malaysia 1 Mauritania 1

113 Country-by-Country Reports 105 Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Mexico 1 Morocco 1 Paraguay 1 Portugal 1 Romania 1 Slovakia 1 Thailand 1 Togo 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 Turkey 1 United Arab Emirates 1 Zambia 1 Table Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by France s state measures Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 17 Argentina 8 Canada 8 South Africa 8 Turkey 8 United States of America 8 Australia 7 Brazil 7 Colombia 7 Japan 7 Mexico 7 New Zealand 7 Pakistan 7 Singapore 7 Switzerland 7 Thailand 7 Croatia 6 India 6 Israel 6 Malaysia 6 Peru 6 Republic of Korea 6 Russian Federation 6 Serbia 6 United Arab Emirates 6 Armenia 5 Austria 5 Belarus 5 Belgium 5 FRANCE

114 106 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report FRANCE Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Bosnia and Herzegovina 5 Bulgaria 5 Costa Rica 5 Czech Republic 5 Denmark 5 Egypt 5 Greece 5 Ireland 5 Italy 5 Kenya 5 Norway 5 Philippines 5 Portugal 5 Romania 5 Sweden 5 Tunisia 5 Ukraine 5 Chile 4 Côte d'ivoire 4 Dominican Republic 4 Estonia 4 Germany 4 Guatemala 4 Lithuania 4 Netherlands 4 Nicaragua 4 Oman 4 Paraguay 4 Republic of Moldova 4 Senegal 4 Slovakia 4 Slovenia 4 Trinidad and Tobago 4 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4 Viet Nam 4 Algeria 3 Azerbaijan 3 Bolivia 3 Cyprus 3 El Salvador 3 Ethiopia 3 Finland 3 Hong Kong 3 Hungary 3 Iceland 3 Indonesia 3 Jordan 3

115 Country-by-Country Reports 107 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Kazakhstan 3 Lebanon 3 Luxembourg 3 Madagascar 3 Mauritius 3 Morocco 3 Namibia 3 Poland 3 Spain 3 Uruguay 3 Zambia 3 Albania 2 Chinese Taipei 2 Cuba 2 Ecuador 2 Georgia 2 Ghana 2 Honduras 2 Iran 2 Latvia 2 Mali 2 Netherlands Antilles 2 Panama 2 Sri Lanka 2 Uganda 2 United Republic of Tanzania 2 Venezuela 2 Yemen 2 Zimbabwe 2 Barbados 1 Belize 1 Benin 1 Burkina Faso 1 Burundi 1 Cameroon 1 Guyana 1 Jamaica 1 Kyrgyzstan 1 Macedonia 1 Malawi 1 Niger 1 Nigeria 1 Palestinian 1 Qatar 1 Saint Lucia 1 Saudi Arabia 1 Sudan 1 FRANCE

116 108 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Suriname 1 Togo 1 Table Implemented measures that harm France s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Bail out / state aid measure % Tariff measure % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Export taxes or restriction % Export subsidy % Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Migration measure % Public procurement % Local content requirement % Trade finance 9 2.9% Consumption subsidy 6 2.0% Import ban 6 2.0% Competitive devaluation 5 1.6% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 5 1.6% State trading enterprise 5 1.6% State-controlled company 5 1.6% Technical Barrier to Trade 5 1.6% Investment measure 4 1.3% Other service sector measure 4 1.3% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 3 1.0% Import subsidy 2 0.7% Intellectual property protection 2 0.7% Sub-national government measure 1 0.3% Total % Table France s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type FRANCE Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Export subsidy % Bail out / state aid measure % Investment measure 2 8.3% Consumption subsidy 1 4.2% Export taxes or restriction 1 4.2% Local content requirement 1 4.2% Public procurement 1 4.2% Total %

117 Country-by-Country Reports 109 Map 4.11 France: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures FRANCE

118 110 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report FRANCE Map 4.12 France: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others.

119 Country-by-Country Reports 111 Germany Table Foreign state measures affecting Germany s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Germany s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting Germany s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of Germany s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm Germany s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Germany s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against Germany s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting Germany s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect Germany s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm Germany s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm Germany s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Germany in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. GERMANY

120 112 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Germany s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting Germany s commercial interests Total number of Germany s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of Germany s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of Germany s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of Germany s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by Germany that harm foreign commercial interests. Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by Germany that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by Germany that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions GERMANY Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting Germany in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database.

121 Country-by-Country Reports 113 Table Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting Germany s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 57 Argentina 20 Indonesia 14 Brazil 13 India 12 Belarus 9 China 9 Kazakhstan 8 Nigeria 7 Ukraine 6 United States of America 6 Australia 5 Italy 5 Japan 5 Republic of Korea 5 Algeria 4 France 4 Pakistan 4 Saudi Arabia 4 South Africa 4 Spain 4 Viet Nam 4 Poland 3 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 3 Austria 2 Bolivia 2 Canada 2 Denmark 2 Finland 2 Malaysia 2 Morocco 2 Netherlands 2 Switzerland 2 Belgium 1 Cameroon 1 Ecuador 1 Egypt 1 Ethiopia 1 Gambia 1 Ghana 1 Greece 1 Iran 1 Israel 1 Latvia 1 Mexico 1 GERMANY

122 114 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Paraguay 1 Portugal 1 Romania 1 Slovakia 1 Sweden 1 Thailand 1 Togo 1 Turkey 1 Uzbekistan 1 Venezuela 1 Table Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by Germany s state measures GERMANY Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 18 Japan 9 Republic of Korea 9 Switzerland 8 United States of America 8 Australia 6 Brazil 6 Denmark 6 France 6 India 6 New Zealand 6 Pakistan 6 Turkey 6 Austria 5 Canada 5 Egypt 5 Finland 5 Iceland 5 Italy 5 Netherlands 5 Norway 5 Russian Federation 5 Singapore 5 Spain 5 Sweden 5 Thailand 5 Argentina 4 Belarus 4 Bolivia 4 Chinese Taipei 4 Colombia 4 Croatia 4

123 Country-by-Country Reports 115 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures El Salvador 4 Guatemala 4 Hungary 4 Iran 4 Ireland 4 Latvia 4 Oman 4 Paraguay 4 Romania 4 Serbia 4 South Africa 4 United Arab Emirates 4 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4 Armenia 3 Bahrain 3 Belgium 3 Chile 3 Costa Rica 3 Dominican Republic 3 Greece 3 Hong Kong 3 Jordan 3 Kazakhstan 3 Lebanon 3 Liechtenstein 3 Malaysia 3 Mexico 3 Nicaragua 3 Panama 3 Peru 3 Philippines 3 Poland 3 Saudi Arabia 3 Slovakia 3 Trinidad and Tobago 3 Uruguay 3 Viet Nam 3 Yemen 3 Zambia 3 Algeria 2 Azerbaijan 2 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 Czech Republic 2 Côte d'ivoire 2 Ecuador 2 Ethiopia 2 Indonesia 2 GERMANY

124 116 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report GERMANY Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Israel 2 Kenya 2 Kyrgyzstan 2 Lithuania 2 Luxembourg 2 Mauritius 2 Namibia 2 Netherlands Antilles 2 Nigeria 2 Republic of Moldova 2 Sudan 2 Tunisia 2 Uganda 2 Ukraine 2 United Republic of Tanzania 2 Zimbabwe 2 Albania 1 Bangladesh 1 Barbados 1 Belize 1 Bulgaria 1 Burundi 1 Cayman Islands 1 Cyprus 1 Georgia 1 Ghana 1 Guyana 1 Honduras 1 Jamaica 1 Lao People's Democratic Republic 1 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 1 Macedonia 1 Madagascar 1 Malawi 1 Mali 1 Mongolia 1 Morocco 1 Myanmar 1 Nepal 1 Niger 1 Palestinian 1 Papua New Guinea 1 Portugal 1 Qatar 1 Senegal 1 Slovenia 1 Somalia 1

125 Country-by-Country Reports 117 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Sri Lanka 1 Syrian Arab Republic 1 Tajikistan 1 Turkmenistan 1 Uzbekistan 1 Venezuela 1 Table Implemented measures that harm Germany s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Tariff measure % Bail out / state aid measure % Export taxes or restriction % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Export subsidy % Public procurement % Local content requirement % Import ban 9 2.7% Migration measure 9 2.7% Trade finance 9 2.7% Investment measure 7 2.1% Consumption subsidy 6 1.8% Competitive devaluation 5 1.5% Other service sector measure 5 1.5% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 5 1.5% Technical Barrier to Trade 5 1.5% State trading enterprise 3 0.9% Import subsidy 2 0.6% Intellectual property protection 2 0.6% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 2 0.6% State-controlled company 2 0.6% Sub-national government measure 1 0.3% Total % GERMANY

126 118 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table Germany s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Bail out / state aid measure % Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Export subsidy % Export taxes or restriction 1 2.7% Investment measure 1 2.7% Other service sector measure 1 2.7% Total % GERMANY

127 Country-by-Country Reports 119 Map 4.13 Germany: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures. GERMANY

128 120 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report GERMANY Map 4.14 Germany: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others

129 Country-by-Country Reports 121 India Table Foreign state measures affecting India s commercial interests Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting India s commercial interests Total number of measures affecting India s commercial interests Total number of foreign measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of India s commercial interests [1] Total number of foreign measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm India s commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against India s interests [2] Total number of foreign measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against India s interests [3] Total number of implemented measures affecting India s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures likely to affect India s commercial interests Total number of pending foreign measures that, if implemented, are likely to harm India s foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners that have imposed measures that harm India s commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting India in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. INDIA

130 122 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Table India s state measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests. Summary statistic of foreign state measures affecting India s commercial interests Total number of India s measures affecting other jurisdictions commercial interests Total number of India s measures found to benefit or involve no change in the treatment of other jurisdictions commercial interests [1] Total number of India s measures that (i) have been implemented and are likely to harm foreign commercial interests or (ii) that have been announced but not implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign interests [2] Total number of India s measures that have been implemented and which almost certainly discriminate against foreign commercial interests [3] Total number of 4-digit tariff lines affected by measures implemented by India that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of 2-digit sectors affected by measures implemented by India that harm foreign commercial interests Total number of trading partners affected by measures implemented by India that harm foreign commercial interests All measures All measures except antidumping, anti-subsidy, and safe-guard actions Note: As the Global Trade Alert database is updated frequently, the above data will change. Updates on the numbers in this table can be found by going to and selecting India in the Affecting Trading Partner and clicking the button Get Stats. [1] These measures are classified green in the Global Trade Alert database. [2] These measures are classified amber in the Global Trade Alert database. [3] These measures are classified red in the Global Trade Alert database. INDIA

131 Country-by-Country Reports 123 Table Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures affecting India s commercial interests Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Russian Federation 23 Argentina 18 Indonesia 10 Brazil 7 Republic of Korea 7 France 6 Germany 6 Spain 6 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 6 United States of America 6 China 5 Netherlands 5 Nigeria 5 Australia 4 Canada 4 Kazakhstan 4 Poland 4 Saudi Arabia 4 Ukraine 4 Algeria 3 Austria 3 Belarus 3 Belgium 3 Finland 3 Ireland 3 Italy 3 Japan 3 Latvia 3 Pakistan 3 Portugal 3 Romania 3 Slovakia 3 Sweden 3 Viet Nam 3 Bulgaria 2 Cyprus 2 Czech Republic 2 Denmark 2 Estonia 2 European Communities 2 Greece 2 Hungary 2 Lithuania 2 Luxembourg 2 Malaysia 2 INDIA

132 124 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Foreign jurisdictions implementing measures Number of measures Malta 2 Mexico 2 Singapore 2 Slovenia 2 South Africa 2 United Arab Emirates 2 Ecuador 1 Ethiopia 1 Ghana 1 Kenya 1 Paraguay 1 Peru 1 Sri Lanka 1 Thailand 1 Togo 1 United Republic of Tanzania 1 Venezuela 1 Zambia 1 Table 4.46 Foreign jurisdictions commercial interests affected by India s state measures INDIA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures China 35 Thailand 17 Japan 16 Republic of Korea 16 Singapore 16 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 15 United States of America 15 Italy 14 Malaysia 14 Spain 13 Bangladesh 12 Germany 12 Indonesia 12 Australia 11 Belgium 11 Canada 11 Pakistan 11 Brazil 10 France 10 Russian Federation 10 Saudi Arabia 10 Egypt 9 Israel 9 Netherlands 9

133 Country-by-Country Reports 125 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Algeria 8 Finland 8 Mauritius 8 Mexico 8 Portugal 8 Romania 8 South Africa 8 Sri Lanka 8 Sweden 8 Switzerland 8 Turkey 8 United Arab Emirates 8 Argentina 7 Benin 7 Democratic People's Republic of Korea 7 Greece 7 Iran 7 Nepal 7 Philippines 7 Poland 7 Qatar 7 Sudan 7 Tunisia 7 Ukraine 7 United Republic of Tanzania 7 Viet Nam 7 Austria 6 Chile 6 Czech Republic 6 Côte d'ivoire 6 Denmark 6 Hong Kong 6 Kuwait 6 Nigeria 6 Norway 6 Oman 6 Senegal 6 Slovenia 6 Zimbabwe 6 Afghanistan 5 Azerbaijan 5 Bulgaria 5 Colombia 5 Croatia 5 Dominican Republic 5 Ghana 5 Guatemala 5 INDIA

134 126 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report INDIA Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Honduras 5 Ireland 5 Kazakhstan 5 Kenya 5 Latvia 5 Lebanon 5 Lithuania 5 Madagascar 5 Mali 5 Morocco 5 Mozambique 5 Myanmar 5 New Zealand 5 Peru 5 Togo 5 Turkmenistan 5 Venezuela 5 Yemen 5 Angola 4 Bahamas 4 Bahrain 4 Cambodia 4 Cameroon 4 Congo 4 Djibouti 4 Ecuador 4 Ethiopia 4 Fiji 4 Gambia 4 Guinea 4 Hungary 4 Jordan 4 Kyrgyzstan 4 Lesotho 4 Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 4 Malawi 4 Mauritania 4 Netherlands Antilles 4 Niger 4 Panama 4 Syrian Arab Republic 4 Trinidad and Tobago 4 Uganda 4 Uruguay 4 Zambia 4 Bhutan 3 Burkina Faso 3

135 Country-by-Country Reports 127 Foreign jurisdictions affected Number of measures Estonia 3 Slovakia 3 Armenia 2 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 Chinese Taipei 2 Eritrea 2 European Communities 2 Gabon 2 Luxembourg 2 Macedonia 2 Maldives 2 Swaziland 2 Uzbekistan 2 Belarus 1 Brunei Darussalam 1 Central African Republic 1 Chad 1 Costa Rica 1 Cuba 1 Cyprus 1 Iraq 1 Jamaica 1 Nicaragua 1 Papua New Guinea 1 Paraguay 1 Republic of Moldova 1 Somalia 1 Table Implemented measures that harm India s commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Tariff measure % Bail out / state aid measure % Migration measure % Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) % Export taxes or restriction % Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Local content requirement 9 3.8% Export subsidy 7 2.9% Import ban 7 2.9% Public procurement 7 2.9% Trade finance 6 2.5% Competitive devaluation 5 2.1% Investment measure 4 1.7% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 4 1.7% Technical Barrier to Trade 4 1.7% INDIA

136 128 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Intellectual property protection 3 1.3% Consumption subsidy 2 0.8% Other service sector measure 2 0.8% Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure 2 0.8% Import subsidy 1 0.4% State-controlled company 1 0.4% Sub-national government measure 1 0.4% Total % Table India s implemented measures that harm foreign commercial interests, by type Type of measure Number of measures As percentage of measures Trade defence measure (AD, CVD, safeguard) % Export taxes or restriction % Export subsidy 6 9.5% Tariff measure 4 6.3% Investment measure 2 3.2% Migration measure 2 3.2% Non tariff barrier (not otherwise specified) 2 3.2% Trade finance 2 3.2% Import ban 1 1.6% Import subsidy 1 1.6% Local content requirement 1 1.6% Public procurement 1 1.6% Quota (including tariff rate quotas) 1 1.6% Total % INDIA

137 Country-by-Country Reports 129 Map 4.15 India: Worldwide incidence of harm done by this G20 member s discriminatory measures INDIA

138 130 Tensions Contained... For Now: The 8th GTA report INDIA Map 4.16 India: Harm done to this G20 member s commercial interests by others